I don't know what I'm doing wrong..
Replies
-
robs_ready wrote: »tara_means_star wrote: »How do you explain starvation and anorexia?
How do you explain people who can eat all day and not gain weight!?
People burn vastly different amounts of calories based mainly on body size, body composition, and physical activity. I went to school with a girl who was rail thin and ate a ton, but she also spent most of her free time doing sports, so she also burned far more calories than I did.0 -
We don't have enough info to definitely say what is going on. However, considering the number of times we repeat that weight loss is not linear, I'm working on the assumption that her weight loss is proceeding in its normal nonlinear manner.0
-
-
We don't have enough info to definitely say what is going on. However, considering the number of times we repeat that weight loss is not linear, I'm working on the assumption that her weight loss is proceeding in its normal nonlinear manner.
This. She's only been dieting since Christmas, she's lost ~1 lb per week, and she's not morbidly obese, which would allow her to lose weight more rapidly. Sounds like OP simply has a case of impatience (which happens from time to time).
Consistency over time is key. 2 weeks is not a plateau.0 -
robs_ready wrote: »It's cool guys, I'm wrong, I guess you can't starve yourself and not lose weight.
Let's assume the op is not accurately counting, that's the more logical assumption
Or the OP may be accurately counting and losing fat. Weight loss and fat loss aren't the same - a lot of other factors could come into play, mainly water retention. We don't even know if the lack of observed weight loss over these 2 weeks comes from 14 data points or 2 data points.0 -
robs_ready wrote: »tara_means_star wrote: »I looked at your diary and I see two major problems:
1. Found several entries where you logged 400 calories for the day, 800 for the day, or 250 for the day. THAT'S NOT ENOUGH CALORIES TO EAT. Losing weight doesn't mean you starve yourself. So you're either eating way too little or you're not logging what you're eating.
2. I see you using "cups" as measurements. So do you use a food scale? If not, you need to. Cups is not an accurate way to measure.
If she's not losing I'd venture to say the problem is she's not logging accurately. She's definitely not eating too little.
Not necessarily,
I've seen many occasions where people starve themselves of calories and lose no weight, your body is a complex machine designed to survive hard times, holding on to fat for preservation.
sorry that is wrong…
if that was the case then there would be no starting people and you would not die from starvation ….
please stop spreading this myth ...0 -
robs_ready wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »tara_means_star wrote: »How do you explain starvation and anorexia?
How do you explain people who can eat all day and not gain weight!?
2 bodies react very differently to hundreds and hundreds of factors, just because one person loses weight starving (weigh in this case, being mostly muscle tissue), doesn't mean others will. Genetics play a big part
Genetics play a small part, the rest is simple biology.
There's a difference between your perception of someone who 'eats all day' and the reality of that.
Fair enough.
I can't prove anything as others have already jumped on, but to say everyone has the same cico formula is incredibly naive
no one is saying that everyone has the same CICO formula…what they are saying is that your body does to hold on to fat if you do not eat enough, that is ridiculous, because if that was true no one would die from starvation ...0 -
robs_ready wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »tara_means_star wrote: »How do you explain starvation and anorexia?
How do you explain people who can eat all day and not gain weight!?
2 bodies react very differently to hundreds and hundreds of factors, just because one person loses weight starving (weigh in this case, being mostly muscle tissue), doesn't mean others will. Genetics play a big part
Genetics play a small part, the rest is simple biology.
There's a difference between your perception of someone who 'eats all day' and the reality of that.
Fair enough.
I can't prove anything as others have already jumped on, but to say everyone has the same cico formula is incredibly naive
no one is saying that everyone has the same CICO formula…what they are saying is that your body does to hold on to fat if you do not eat enough, that is ridiculous, because if that was true no one would die from starvation ...
Yeah I know, read my previous comment.
She's not to technically starving, but Yeah, your right.0 -
robs_ready wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »tara_means_star wrote: »How do you explain starvation and anorexia?
How do you explain people who can eat all day and not gain weight!?
2 bodies react very differently to hundreds and hundreds of factors, just because one person loses weight starving (weigh in this case, being mostly muscle tissue), doesn't mean others will. Genetics play a big part
Genetics play a small part, the rest is simple biology.
There's a difference between your perception of someone who 'eats all day' and the reality of that.
Fair enough.
I can't prove anything as others have already jumped on, but to say everyone has the same cico formula is incredibly naive
no one is saying that everyone has the same CICO formula…what they are saying is that your body does to hold on to fat if you do not eat enough, that is ridiculous, because if that was true no one would die from starvation ...
Yeah I know, read my previous comment.
She's not to technically starving, but Yeah, your right.
you mad bro, because your starvation mode theory got shredded? Its ok, you can resort to sarcasm, my feelings won't be hurt….
she lost seven pound in about five weeks, her problem is lack of patience….0 -
robs_ready wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »tara_means_star wrote: »How do you explain starvation and anorexia?
How do you explain people who can eat all day and not gain weight!?
2 bodies react very differently to hundreds and hundreds of factors, just because one person loses weight starving (weigh in this case, being mostly muscle tissue), doesn't mean others will. Genetics play a big part
Genetics play a small part, the rest is simple biology.
There's a difference between your perception of someone who 'eats all day' and the reality of that.
Fair enough.
I can't prove anything as others have already jumped on, but to say everyone has the same cico formula is incredibly naive
no one is saying that everyone has the same CICO formula…what they are saying is that your body does to hold on to fat if you do not eat enough, that is ridiculous, because if that was true no one would die from starvation ...
Yeah I know, read my previous comment.
She's not to technically starving, but Yeah, your right.
you mad bro, because your starvation mode theory got shredded? Its ok, you can resort to sarcasm, my feelings won't be hurt….
she lost seven pound in about five weeks, her problem is lack of patience….
Lol, yeah probably.0 -
robs_ready wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »robs_ready wrote: »tara_means_star wrote: »How do you explain starvation and anorexia?
How do you explain people who can eat all day and not gain weight!?
2 bodies react very differently to hundreds and hundreds of factors, just because one person loses weight starving (weigh in this case, being mostly muscle tissue), doesn't mean others will. Genetics play a big part
Genetics play a small part, the rest is simple biology.
There's a difference between your perception of someone who 'eats all day' and the reality of that.
Fair enough.
I can't prove anything as others have already jumped on, but to say everyone has the same cico formula is incredibly naive
no one is saying that everyone has the same CICO formula…what they are saying is that your body does to hold on to fat if you do not eat enough, that is ridiculous, because if that was true no one would die from starvation ...
Yeah I know, read my previous comment.
She's not to technically starving, but Yeah, your right.
you mad bro, because your starvation mode theory got shredded? Its ok, you can resort to sarcasm, my feelings won't be hurt….
she lost seven pound in about five weeks, her problem is lack of patience….
Lol, yeah probably.
from OP -I'm 5'7'', and I've been dieting since Christmas.. I was 155lbs then... Now I'm 148
but I guessed you missed that part….0 -
-
And some helpful threads, posts, links:
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
"Most weight loss occurs because of decreased caloric intake.
However, evidence shows the only way to maintain weight loss is to be engaged in regular physical activity."
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/physical_activity/index.html
0 -
As for the nonsense about "you're not eating enough, so your body is holding onto calories"...
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.
POW's would be robust, not walking skeletons.0 -
You should have a Refeed day once a week where you consume more calories than what you consume daily. Add 600 calories to your daily calorie just on that day. It will help0
-
robs_ready wrote: »tara_means_star wrote: »How do you explain starvation and anorexia?
How do you explain people who can eat all day and not gain weight!?
2 bodies react very differently to hundreds and hundreds of factors, just because one person loses weight starving (weigh in this case, being mostly muscle tissue), doesn't mean others will. Genetics play a big part
Perception.
I wish I could find the video but I can't. It was of two best friends, one who admittedly eats all day long (her best friend agrees) and one who barely eats yet is overweight. The thin friend eats terrible food according to both women. The overweight friend believes she simply has a slow metabolism and her friend has a fast one.
They test their metabolism and unsurprisingly, the larger woman has a higher one (likely because she burns more carrying more weight). They also track the calorie intake of both and not surprisingly, the smaller woman who "eats all the time" actually ate fewer calories.
In general, we are pretty terrible at estimating how much we eat. It goes both ways although I think it is more common that people underestimate what they eat than overestimate.
ETA -
That among other things. Activity level was already mentioned, I just wanted to add to that and mention the perception of people who are "always eating" "eat a ton" etc. It means nothing.0 -
oh lord0
-
I don't think that anyone has said everyone should eat the same amount,robs_ready wrote:to say everyone has the same cico formula is incredibly naive
and they'll weigh the same, or lose the same amount of weight.
What is said, and is science, and is true, and can't be changed,
is that if a person eats less than they burn, they will lose weight.
Because thermodynamics.0 -
Y0
-
As for the nonsense about "you're not eating enough, so your body is holding onto calories"...
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.
POW's would be robust, not walking skeletons.
From the article:
"There is no such thing as “I’m not losing any weight because I’m eating too little.” That’s horsesh*t. And there’s definitely no such thing as “I’m gaining weight because I’m eating too little.” That’s even bigger horsesh*t that I can only assume would require the presence of an even bigger horse."
I loved this so much I thought I'd stick it on it's own soapbox:) This guy is so funny (also I just love this article)0 -
You need a bigger data set. Two weeks is nothing. I just made a post about the crazy zig zag 'progress' I have made over the past 170 days and how when you crunch the numbers I've lost .966 lbs a week like clockwork. I would have never guessed that! Your work is to improve your execution of your program; your body's job is to decide when and where to shed weight. And remember, long term consistency is way more important than anything else.0
-
You need a bigger data set. Two weeks is nothing. I just made a post about the crazy zig zag 'progress' I have made over the past 170 days and how when you crunch the numbers I've lost .966 lbs a week like clockwork. I would have never guessed that! Your work is to improve your execution of your program; your body's job is to decide when and where to shed weight. And remember, long term consistency is way more important than anything else.[/quote]
Agreed! What you do most of the time will affect your weight loss more than what you sometimes do.0 -
tara_means_star wrote: »I looked at your diary and I see two major problems:
1. Found several entries where you logged 400 calories for the day, 800 for the day, or 250 for the day. THAT'S NOT ENOUGH CALORIES TO EAT. Losing weight doesn't mean you starve yourself. So you're either eating way too little or you're not logging what you're eating.
2. I see you using "cups" as measurements. So do you use a food scale? If not, you need to. Cups is not an accurate way to measure.
If she's not losing I'd venture to say the problem is she's not logging accurately. She's definitely not eating too little.
Yeah I should have clarified. I meant to say eating too little and then binging later on and not logging it.
My final answer is that she's probably not accurately logging, given that she uses cups as measurements.
0 -
I'm no professional but I find in the days I eat smaller and more often I lose better than maybe just 3 meals a day without snacking
0 -
If you are sure you're weighing and logging your food correctly, keep on with your goal and you will see results.
Also, I'm assuming you don't have a lot of weight left to lose, and from my own experience I know that can be hard.
I would advise you to focus more on losing body fat, and toning up. I think in your case it's more important how your body feels, and not what the scale says.0 -
The problem I see is that you are trying to do a quick fix with your weight loss. I don't know what your goal is, but 7 pounds til now is great progress. Hang in there, relax a bit, and it will come to you. You say you don't exercise. Add some walking or something, because that will make you feel better overall. Don't give up.0
-
TavistockToad wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »Do you weigh your food?
Do you?
Also, how often do you weigh yourself? If it's only weekly, if you're hitting lower weights during the week you may not be seeing them. Weight fluctuates.
Also, what jemhh said.
Yes. But I'm not the one with questions about my weight loss or lack there of so not sure why it matters?
Sorry, I wasn't clear in my quoting. I was quoting you, but speaking to the OP since she didn't answer your question, but did answer the one after yours. Should have asked "Do you, OP?"0 -
cassieknights951 wrote: »I'm no professional but I find in the days I eat smaller and more often I lose better than maybe just 3 meals a day without snacking
Do you mean you weigh less on the scale the very next day? The results the very next day aren't a great way to determine what works best for weight loss.
I often weigh less, for example, after a night of heavy drinking. But that's because of dehydration. It isn't because heavy drinking is a stellar weight loss strategy.0 -
robs_ready wrote: »tara_means_star wrote: »I looked at your diary and I see two major problems:
1. Found several entries where you logged 400 calories for the day, 800 for the day, or 250 for the day. THAT'S NOT ENOUGH CALORIES TO EAT. Losing weight doesn't mean you starve yourself. So you're either eating way too little or you're not logging what you're eating.
2. I see you using "cups" as measurements. So do you use a food scale? If not, you need to. Cups is not an accurate way to measure.
If she's not losing I'd venture to say the problem is she's not logging accurately. She's definitely not eating too little.
Not necessarily,
I've seen many occasions where people starve themselves of calories and lose no weight, your body is a complex machine designed to survive hard times, holding on to fat for preservation.
Even if this were something that could really happen (which it isn't in the way you describe), what good would it do "for preservation" for your body to refuse to use energy stored in fat to carry out bodily functions when consumption is resulting in a calorie deficit. If it doesn't use the fat-energy, it would have to sacrifice something like muscle repair, breathing, thinking, moving, complicated cellular-level reactions that are pretty much the basis of life...
So your body would rather have stores of fat than to be able to keep your heart beating?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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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
- 96.4K 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