Not Loosing using Macros
Options
Replies
-
sunflo7019 wrote: »Hello, I have been doing Macros for about 5 weeks. My weight hasn't moved. I am hitting my macros. Once in a while over on fats, occasionally on carbs. I am currently eating 1700 calories, 170 protein, 64 carbs and 85 fats. I put in that I wanted to loose 2 pds a week. I exercise 6 days a week. 3 days with personal trainer, 2 days water fitness and Saturdays on my own. Here is my history. Before Macros I was original eating 1200 calories, hit a wall with that and went down to 1000 calories or less. Trainer told me this would come back to bite me. I think I messed up my metabolism somehow. My trainer told me she would like to see me at 75 carbs on days when I work with her (3). I am going to stick with it but would like to see some results. Any suggestions? Joanne
I read through most of the posts, not all of them. I am 5'7.5", I started at 254.6, I set it at sedentary, working out 45 min 4-5 days a week right now and don't eat those back, and I started at 1520 calories, at 1510 right now. I do cardio and lower body weight work but have not started upper body yet, probably Monday. I have lost about 9 pounds in 3 weeks, have my next weight in Wednesday.
I don't know why you need 170 grams of protein. Even when I was lifting a TON, I ate about 120-150 grams. I was much leaner and muscular then. I would lower your calories by a hundred every couple of weeks until you start losing. I would also do more like 120 protein, 120 carb, and 60 or so fat. That comes to 1500 calories. You only need UP to 1 gram of protein for every pound of LEAN body weight.0 -
rileysowner wrote: »sunflowerhippi wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »sunflowerhippi wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
I thought you werent supposed to eat less than your BMR? since those are the calories your body needs to function properly?
That's why my last line says her BMR is 1682 so 1650-1700. She has cancer and the doctor wants her to drop weight as fast as she can to make surgery safer. So like someone who is horribly obese and needs to drop weight fast for their own health I think for short term eating at BMR is the better of two options vs pushing back surgery.
she says the dr wants her to keep going to lose more weight. not to lose it as fast as she can.
She has a type of cancer that needs to be treated quickly. From her posts she feels quickly is what is needed and I can't blame her. At 258lbs and 5ft tall she also has a lot of weight to lose as well.
I don't fret over more aggressive goals in general, but, yes, this is a circumstance where a 2 pound a week goal is completely appropriate. With a start weight of 258 the OP could lose up to 2.5 pounds a week and still not be losing more than 1% for a bit. There are in fact much more restrictive medically supervised plans for obese patients.
Your body can pull and estimated 30ish calories a day from every pound of fat. That is the reason why someone with a lot of fat can sustain a deeper deficit without risking lean body mass...they have enough stored fat to burn for energy.
I have been looking for this estimate number for a while. Do you have a source for it as I would like to see it. I know that there is a direct relation between how much fat a person can oxidize and the total fat available, I just could not find and number.
Google turns up this citation
Alpert SS. A limit on the energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia. J Theor Biol. 2005 Mar 7;233(1):1-13.
It apparently has been popularized and spread from http://baye.com/calculating-the-dail...imum-fat-loss/
I'm disappointed that's all I can find. I had come across this number a couple of years back, and my recollection was that there had been more support than just one study. While I still confident in the general concept (more body fat, the more energy can be drawn from fat storage instead of lean tissue), I don't feel on quite so solid ground with regard to the 30 g/pound of fat/day.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »sunflowerhippi wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »sunflowerhippi wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
I thought you werent supposed to eat less than your BMR? since those are the calories your body needs to function properly?
That's why my last line says her BMR is 1682 so 1650-1700. She has cancer and the doctor wants her to drop weight as fast as she can to make surgery safer. So like someone who is horribly obese and needs to drop weight fast for their own health I think for short term eating at BMR is the better of two options vs pushing back surgery.
she says the dr wants her to keep going to lose more weight. not to lose it as fast as she can.
She has a type of cancer that needs to be treated quickly. From her posts she feels quickly is what is needed and I can't blame her. At 258lbs and 5ft tall she also has a lot of weight to lose as well.
I don't fret over more aggressive goals in general, but, yes, this is a circumstance where a 2 pound a week goal is completely appropriate. With a start weight of 258 the OP could lose up to 2.5 pounds a week and still not be losing more than 1% for a bit. There are in fact much more restrictive medically supervised plans for obese patients.
Your body can pull and estimated 30ish calories a day from every pound of fat. That is the reason why someone with a lot of fat can sustain a deeper deficit without risking lean body mass...they have enough stored fat to burn for energy.
I have been looking for this estimate number for a while. Do you have a source for it as I would like to see it. I know that there is a direct relation between how much fat a person can oxidize and the total fat available, I just could not find and number.
Google turns up this citation
Alpert SS. A limit on the energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia. J Theor Biol. 2005 Mar 7;233(1):1-13.
It apparently has been popularized and spread from http://baye.com/calculating-the-dail...imum-fat-loss/
I'm disappointed that's all I can find. I had come across this number a couple of years back, and my recollection was that there had been more support than just one study. While I still confident in the general concept (more body fat, the more energy can be drawn from fat storage instead of lean tissue), I don't feel on quite so solid ground with regard to the 30 g/pound of fat/day.
Thanks. There may be more, but this gives me a place to start.0 -
melissa6771 wrote: »sunflo7019 wrote: »Hello, I have been doing Macros for about 5 weeks. My weight hasn't moved. I am hitting my macros. Once in a while over on fats, occasionally on carbs. I am currently eating 1700 calories, 170 protein, 64 carbs and 85 fats. I put in that I wanted to loose 2 pds a week. I exercise 6 days a week. 3 days with personal trainer, 2 days water fitness and Saturdays on my own. Here is my history. Before Macros I was original eating 1200 calories, hit a wall with that and went down to 1000 calories or less. Trainer told me this would come back to bite me. I think I messed up my metabolism somehow. My trainer told me she would like to see me at 75 carbs on days when I work with her (3). I am going to stick with it but would like to see some results. Any suggestions? Joanne
I read through most of the posts, not all of them. I am 5'7.5", I started at 254.6, I set it at sedentary, working out 45 min 4-5 days a week right now and don't eat those back, and I started at 1520 calories, at 1510 right now. I do cardio and lower body weight work but have not started upper body yet, probably Monday. I have lost about 9 pounds in 3 weeks, have my next weight in Wednesday.
I don't know why you need 170 grams of protein. Even when I was lifting a TON, I ate about 120-150 grams. I was much leaner and muscular then. I would lower your calories by a hundred every couple of weeks until you start losing. I would also do more like 120 protein, 120 carb, and 60 or so fat. That comes to 1500 calories. You only need UP to 1 gram of protein for every pound of LEAN body weight.
Melissa6771, that is my thought also. I am going to lower down my numbers. I have been thinking about this all day. I am trying to remember how I came up with the 170 grams of protein. I have it on a paper saying it was My Fitness Pal. I also ran numbers through IIFYM. I have run my info through so many of those calculators. Not using macros I was doing 1200 calories and hit the wall. Went down to 1000 or less now back up to 1700 calories. The carb number freaks me out. I have a lady at work that is living on 20 carbs or less a day. She is loosing like crazy and she doesn't do one bit of exercise. This can get so confusing. Obviously what I am doing is not working. So need to do something. Thanks for much.0 -
Do you understand your macros and why you have them set up as such? It seems like someone just gave you a couple of numbers and you just went with it.
Right now you have 1,700 calories with a split of 15% carbs, 45% fat, 40% protein. Unless you have some sort of insulin resistance, there's really no need to actively avoid carbs. Some people do well on a high fat, low carb diet, but it's again unnecessary.
I personally would lower your calories to maybe 1500 (see how your body reacts to that), up the carbs, and lower the fat. While fat does have it's importance, it is also the most calorically dense macronutrient. So you can get twice as many carbs than with fat. At the end of the day macros are just a fancy way of counting calories. And to be honest counting macros only really makes a difference if you're a serious athlete or a physique competitor.0 -
MichelleLei1 wrote: »Do you understand your macros and why you have them set up as such? It seems like someone just gave you a couple of numbers and you just went with it.
Right now you have 1,700 calories with a split of 15% carbs, 45% fat, 40% protein. Unless you have some sort of insulin resistance, there's really no need to actively avoid carbs. Some people do well on a high fat, low carb diet, but it's again unnecessary.
I personally would lower your calories to maybe 1500 (see how your body reacts to that), up the carbs, and lower the fat. While fat does have it's importance, it is also the most calorically dense macronutrient. So you can get twice as many carbs than with fat. At the end of the day macros are just a fancy way of counting calories. And to be honest counting macros only really makes a difference if you're a serious athlete or a physique competitor.
In light of the posters cancerous cyst, keeping carbs low makes sense as cancers tend to like carbs from what I remember. With the cyst being on her kidney, it is likely that going higher in protein would not be ideal either. That makes a breakdown like we see here make much more sense. Since the loss of weight is necessary for her to have the surgery for a cancer that itself could be life threatening, it makes a rapid weight loss preferable.0 -
rileysowner wrote: »MichelleLei1 wrote: »Do you understand your macros and why you have them set up as such? It seems like someone just gave you a couple of numbers and you just went with it.
Right now you have 1,700 calories with a split of 15% carbs, 45% fat, 40% protein. Unless you have some sort of insulin resistance, there's really no need to actively avoid carbs. Some people do well on a high fat, low carb diet, but it's again unnecessary.
I personally would lower your calories to maybe 1500 (see how your body reacts to that), up the carbs, and lower the fat. While fat does have it's importance, it is also the most calorically dense macronutrient. So you can get twice as many carbs than with fat. At the end of the day macros are just a fancy way of counting calories. And to be honest counting macros only really makes a difference if you're a serious athlete or a physique competitor.
In light of the posters cancerous cyst, keeping carbs low makes sense as cancers tend to like carbs from what I remember. With the cyst being on her kidney, it is likely that going higher in protein would not be ideal either. That makes a breakdown like we see here make much more sense. Since the loss of weight is necessary for her to have the surgery for a cancer that itself could be life threatening, it makes a rapid weight loss preferable.
Thanks for the information, I hadn't even considered that. But from what I gathered, this macro plan is coming from a personal trainer rather than a doctor. This is exactly why I previously suggested getting nutritional information from her doctor rather than a personal trainer or us for that matter. Cancer and weightloss is definitely something very few of us on the board are familiar with. As much as we can try to help, we could be doing more harm than good (like my suggestion to add more carbs).0 -
MichelleLei1 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »MichelleLei1 wrote: »Do you understand your macros and why you have them set up as such? It seems like someone just gave you a couple of numbers and you just went with it.
Right now you have 1,700 calories with a split of 15% carbs, 45% fat, 40% protein. Unless you have some sort of insulin resistance, there's really no need to actively avoid carbs. Some people do well on a high fat, low carb diet, but it's again unnecessary.
I personally would lower your calories to maybe 1500 (see how your body reacts to that), up the carbs, and lower the fat. While fat does have it's importance, it is also the most calorically dense macronutrient. So you can get twice as many carbs than with fat. At the end of the day macros are just a fancy way of counting calories. And to be honest counting macros only really makes a difference if you're a serious athlete or a physique competitor.
In light of the posters cancerous cyst, keeping carbs low makes sense as cancers tend to like carbs from what I remember. With the cyst being on her kidney, it is likely that going higher in protein would not be ideal either. That makes a breakdown like we see here make much more sense. Since the loss of weight is necessary for her to have the surgery for a cancer that itself could be life threatening, it makes a rapid weight loss preferable.
Thanks for the information, I hadn't even considered that. But from what I gathered, this macro plan is coming from a personal trainer rather than a doctor. This is exactly why I previously suggested getting nutritional information from her doctor rather than a personal trainer or us for that matter. Cancer and weightloss is definitely something very few of us on the board are familiar with. As much as we can try to help, we could be doing more harm than good (like my suggestion to add more carbs).
I would agree that a referral to a registered dietitian would be valuable, especially in light of the struggle she is having to lose weight. Doctors generally don't know a lot about weight loss, so a referral would likely be best. Having said that, I don't know what the qualifications of her personal trainer are either. They may have understanding in this area that you and I don't. To the original poster, I would suggest asking your doctor for a referral to a registered dietitian.0 -
sunflo7019 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »@sunflo7019 how long did you under eat that you think may have messed up your metabolism somehow?
At least 3 months of eating 1000 calories or less.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=ETkwZIi3R7w
@sunflo7019 if you can listen to first 5 minutes I think you will like if the kidney doctor seems to be speaking to your case of stall. If so then listen to the other 30 minutes if you wish. I been at this for 18 months and it finally made the science click in my mind and I think his solution is valid science.0 -
Your Food Diary shows that Snacks can be as much or many times more Breakfast+Lunch+Dinner in calories combined.
Do you starve for most of the day and then catch in the evening?
Or are the snacks dispersed throughout the day?
If you are starving your metabolic rate falls.
Maybe better to increase meal sizes and have snacks in between.0 -
6pkdreamer wrote: »Your Food Diary shows that Snacks can be as much or many times more Breakfast+Lunch+Dinner in calories combined.
Do you starve for most of the day and then catch in the evening?
Or are the snacks dispersed throughout the day?
If you are starving your metabolic rate falls.
Maybe better to increase meal sizes and have snacks in between.
No, it actually does not, at least not in the first 72 hours. In fact metabolism slightly increases at least in the first 24-48 hours of being in a fasted state. Realize, it takes hours for food to digest, thus when one eats a normal sized meal they don't actually enter a fasted state for 6-8 hours, so no, she is not starving and her metabolism does not slow down from what you are implying. Nor does it speed up from frequent feedings. If overall daily calories are the same, the effect on metabolism of different meal timing and numbers is negligible. The whole eat all the time or your metabolism slows down is a myth that has no support in peer reviewed studies, yet it just won't die.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1084912/good-starvation-mode-article
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/820577/meal-frequency-rev-up-that-furnace-lol0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »sunflowerhippi wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »sunflowerhippi wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
I thought you werent supposed to eat less than your BMR? since those are the calories your body needs to function properly?
That's why my last line says her BMR is 1682 so 1650-1700. She has cancer and the doctor wants her to drop weight as fast as she can to make surgery safer. So like someone who is horribly obese and needs to drop weight fast for their own health I think for short term eating at BMR is the better of two options vs pushing back surgery.
she says the dr wants her to keep going to lose more weight. not to lose it as fast as she can.
She has a type of cancer that needs to be treated quickly. From her posts she feels quickly is what is needed and I can't blame her. At 258lbs and 5ft tall she also has a lot of weight to lose as well.
I don't fret over more aggressive goals in general, but, yes, this is a circumstance where a 2 pound a week goal is completely appropriate. With a start weight of 258 the OP could lose up to 2.5 pounds a week and still not be losing more than 1% for a bit. There are in fact much more restrictive medically supervised plans for obese patients.
Your body can pull and estimated 30ish calories a day from every pound of fat. That is the reason why someone with a lot of fat can sustain a deeper deficit without risking lean body mass...they have enough stored fat to burn for energy.
I have been looking for this estimate number for a while. Do you have a source for it as I would like to see it. I know that there is a direct relation between how much fat a person can oxidize and the total fat available, I just could not find and number.
Google turns up this citation
Alpert SS. A limit on the energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia. J Theor Biol. 2005 Mar 7;233(1):1-13.
It apparently has been popularized and spread from http://baye.com/calculating-the-dail...imum-fat-loss/
I'm disappointed that's all I can find. I had come across this number a couple of years back, and my recollection was that there had been more support than just one study. While I still confident in the general concept (more body fat, the more energy can be drawn from fat storage instead of lean tissue), I don't feel on quite so solid ground with regard to the 30 g/pound of fat/day.
31 calories / pound of body fat / day is from Lyle McDonald doing the conversion from a study:
Lyle's explanation: http://mindandmuscle.net/articles/determining-the-maximum-dietary-deficit-for-fat-loss/
The study is the one you listed, which I believe works in joules and kg like good science does.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions