1300 calories and no weight loss in 10 days what am idoing wrong
Options
Replies
-
I eat a ton of carbs. And quite a lot of them things like pizza, bread, pasta, ice cream, and I have had zero problems losing weight because I know how many calories I need to eat to lose at a healthy rate and I weigh my food to ensure the portions I am eating are accurate.
OP said 10 days. 10 days isn't long enough. If she's accurate with her calorie counts, time will tell. If she continues having problems losing weight after a couple of weeks, she's eating too much, no matter what it is.
0 -
axelanderson35 wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »axelanderson35 wrote: »thorsmom01 wrote: »axelanderson35 wrote: »axelanderson35 wrote: »It's also important what KIND of calories you're eating. The body is not a simple calorie in/calorie out arithmetic equation.
for weight loss yes it is...
macros are for health calories for weight.
I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. In a great many studies, low-carbohydrate diets have been shown to be more effective (sometimes MUCH more effective) for losing weight than other diets. There is a mechanism for this, as well. Dietary carbohydrate drives serum glucose. Serum glucose triggers insulin production. Insulin is our bodies' main hormone for the regulation of the flow of fatty acids into and out of fat cells. In short, more carbs means more insulin. More insulin means less fat loss.
Don't take my word for it. I encourage you to examine the literature. The studies below are a good start.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17341711
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022637
http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(02)40206-5/abstract?cc=y=
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2002-021480
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=217514
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=717451
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC538279/
http://www.andjrnl.org/article/S0002-8223(05)01151-X/abstract
For any diet or way of eating- one must be at a caloric deficit. Its that simple. If you like low carb, go for it. But it's not necessary for people to eat low carb to lose weight.
I really hate to press my point because you seem so sure you know the right answer, but there's good evidence that your assertion is incorrect. Fat loss, metabolically speaking, is anything but simple, and more and more, it seems not to conform to the somewhat reductionist calorie-in-calorie-out model.
This study, for example, compared rates of weight loss for three diets: a calorie-restricted low-fat diet, a calorie-restricted Mediterranean-style diet, and a NON-calorie-restricted low-carbohydrate diet. Even though the low-carb dieters were not restricting their calorie intake at all, they still lost more weight than either of the other calorie-restricted diets. Also, the subjects on the Mediterranean-style diet lost more weight than those on the low-fat diet, even though they were both supposedly restricting calorie intake to the same amount.
Clearly, there's something more going on with weight loss than total energy balance. And, given that low-carb diets are more effective for weight loss (as the eight (!) studies I linked to above show), I think even you would have to consider the possibility that macronutrient composition of the diet may have something to do with the matter.
So how do you account for those of us who could care less about macros makeup and only focus on calories? I lost over 50lbs, improved my health and most importantly have been maintaining the loss/good health for 3 years now. The ONLY thing I've focused on is my calorie intake. I still eat all the foods I like (fast food several times a week, sugary foods, enough diet soda to float a boat etc etc, along with things like veggies, whole grains, fish, etc). Don't have a clue what my macros are (probably all over the place though). And I'm not a special snowflake (though I've had a few low carbers tell me that because I defy their weight loss 'logic'
).
This site if full of people who have focused on calories/CICO and have had great success with their goals.
I suppose I'll wind this up, because this thread isn't the place for a debate about low-carb diets. However, I can account for your weight loss quite easily in the context of the carbohydrate>insulin>fat storage hypothesis. Calorie-restricted diets are also carbohydrate-restricted diets. If you're eating 1,200 calories of carbohydrate out of a 2,400-calorie total before you start a diet, then you reduce calorie intake by one third, chances are you're going to restrict carbohydrate by at least 400 calories per day. If you consciously eat more fat, as on a Mediterranean-style diet, you may restrict carbohydrate calories by even more. This, in turn, reduces serum insulin levels, and therefore Lipoprotein Lipase levels, and allows fatty acids to flow out of the adipocytes more freely than when carbohydrate consumption was higher.
I'll conclude by saying that my posts here are intended to help the OP with her weight loss goals. And, I hope, I've provided others with sufficient evidence to warrant considering that the calories-in-calories-out model is, though not technically incorrect, at least incomplete.
Carbohydrates make up about 60% of my diet, this was true for the entire time I was losing weight. While I ate fewer carbohydrates than I did before I began losing weight (because I ate fewer calories overall), the proportion stayed pretty much the same.2 -
My carbs are currently high...I've lost over 80lbs.axelanderson35 wrote: »
I'd bet my weight in dollars that, while the low-carb dieters were not calorie restricted by the study, they *naturally* calorie restricted due to feelings of satiety, and thus lost more weight and fat.axelanderson35 wrote: »thorsmom01 wrote: »axelanderson35 wrote: »axelanderson35 wrote: »It's also important what KIND of calories you're eating. The body is not a simple calorie in/calorie out arithmetic equation.
for weight loss yes it is...
macros are for health calories for weight.
I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. In a great many studies, low-carbohydrate diets have been shown to be more effective (sometimes MUCH more effective) for losing weight than other diets. There is a mechanism for this, as well. Dietary carbohydrate drives serum glucose. Serum glucose triggers insulin production. Insulin is our bodies' main hormone for the regulation of the flow of fatty acids into and out of fat cells. In short, more carbs means more insulin. More insulin means less fat loss.
Don't take my word for it. I encourage you to examine the literature. The studies below are a good start.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17341711
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022637
http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(02)40206-5/abstract?cc=y=
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2002-021480
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=217514
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=717451
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC538279/
http://www.andjrnl.org/article/S0002-8223(05)01151-X/abstract
For any diet or way of eating- one must be at a caloric deficit. Its that simple. If you like low carb, go for it. But it's not necessary for people to eat low carb to lose weight.
I really hate to press my point because you seem so sure you know the right answer, but there's good evidence that your assertion is incorrect. Fat loss, metabolically speaking, is anything but simple, and more and more, it seems not to conform to the somewhat reductionist calorie-in-calorie-out model.
This study, for example, compared rates of weight loss for three diets: a calorie-restricted low-fat diet, a calorie-restricted Mediterranean-style diet, and a NON-calorie-restricted low-carbohydrate diet. Even though the low-carb dieters were not restricting their calorie intake at all, they still lost more weight than either of the other calorie-restricted diets. Also, the subjects on the Mediterranean-style diet lost more weight than those on the low-fat diet, even though they were both supposedly restricting calorie intake to the same amount.
Clearly, there's something more going on with weight loss than total energy balance. And, given that low-carb diets are more effective for weight loss (as the eight (!) studies I linked to above show), I think even you would have to consider the possibility that macronutrient composition of the diet may have something to do with the matter.
Anyway, we digress. I don't think this has anything to do with the OP's problem.
Is it a digression? Possibly. But, I bring it up because it may be part of OP's problem if 90% of her calories are coming from carbohydrate. It's difficult to get energy out of fat cells when your blood is full of insulin and LPL. This is why we do ketogenic diets. (It's nice to know I'm not the only one here.) They facilitate fat loss by removing the hormonal barriers to fatty acids crossing through the adipocyte membranes so they can be used as fuel.
On an unrelated note, I also worry about a nursing mother consciously calorie restricting. I don't have any studies to back this up, but I suspect that it's not ideal for women to be chronically hungry while pregnant or nursing...
I've also done low carb/keto and stuck to the same calorie number.
I lost at the exact same rate as high carb.
Am I a special snowflake?1 -
I'm facing the same problem. 15 days, I've been under my calorie goal and the scale hasn't budged a bit! No idea what's going wrong.0
-
angela3356 wrote: »Ariellebruno wrote: »I won't go above 1300. Usually I'm at 1200-1250. Yesterday after I logged my 60 minute hike it told me to eat 1600 calories I ate 1350
granted, none of us here are experts, and everyone will have their own opinion/answer, BUT did you think that maybe you aren't eating ENOUGH? If you aren't giving your body enough fuel it'll hold on to what it's already got to support itself. Think of your body like a car-you need ALL of the fluids PLUS the maintenance to make it run properly.
This is wrong. Your body won't hold onto anything...if she's not losing weight, she's eating more than she's burning. Either Calories In is incorrect/loose...or Calories Out is overestimated.2 -
Reiterating get a food scale and use it3
-
@Ariellebruno do you weigh all the foods that you eat with a food scale?
Do you use cups/spoons?
Do you measure all liquids?
Are you choosing correct entries.
Also, new exercise + time of the month = fluid retention. Throw in a little salty snacks, and you get more fluid retention. It's normal and will go away.0 -
Gootee0406 wrote: »I have started to see a weight loss doctor who says if you spread it forget it, no oil what so ever, only 1 fruit a day. I can only eat lean protein, green non starchy veggies. I am not allowed to have anything crunchy no cereal or snack like foods. Look at the type of calories you are eating. I am new to this myself, just wanted to offer what I have learned about my eating.
This makes me sad. You are depriving yourself unnecessarily. Burn more calories than you eat....eat what you want, every day, but burn more than what you eat, and you'll lose weight. You can have peanut butter, margarine, miracle whip, icecream, chocolate, cookies.....why deprive yourself?1 -
First, we're talking about a period of ten day. TEN. That's not enough time to determine success of failure. You said you started April 1st, so what happened in those first 8 days?? Did you lose weight? Remember that weight loss isn't linear. There's ups, downs and all arounds. Give it 4-6 weeks before freaking out about no weight loss.
Second, I'll echo, if you're not already, weigh your food with a digital food scale, in grams. Otherwise, you're eating more (calories) than you think.0 -
Are you drinking diet soda or flavored waters that have a lot of sodium? I drank so much water this last week I felt like I was trying to drown my internal organs. Drinking water really does make a difference, it's especially noticeable in the beginning.0
-
axelanderson35 wrote: »thorsmom01 wrote: »axelanderson35 wrote: »axelanderson35 wrote: »It's also important what KIND of calories you're eating. The body is not a simple calorie in/calorie out arithmetic equation.
for weight loss yes it is...
macros are for health calories for weight.
I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. In a great many studies, low-carbohydrate diets have been shown to be more effective (sometimes MUCH more effective) for losing weight than other diets. There is a mechanism for this, as well. Dietary carbohydrate drives serum glucose. Serum glucose triggers insulin production. Insulin is our bodies' main hormone for the regulation of the flow of fatty acids into and out of fat cells. In short, more carbs means more insulin. More insulin means less fat loss.
Don't take my word for it. I encourage you to examine the literature. The studies below are a good start.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17341711
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022637
http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(02)40206-5/abstract?cc=y=
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2002-021480
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=217514
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=717451
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC538279/
http://www.andjrnl.org/article/S0002-8223(05)01151-X/abstract
For any diet or way of eating- one must be at a caloric deficit. Its that simple. If you like low carb, go for it. But it's not necessary for people to eat low carb to lose weight.
I really hate to press my point because you seem so sure you know the right answer, but there's good evidence that your assertion is incorrect. Fat loss, metabolically speaking, is anything but simple, and more and more, it seems not to conform to the somewhat reductionist calorie-in-calorie-out model.
This study, for example, compared rates of weight loss for three diets: a calorie-restricted low-fat diet, a calorie-restricted Mediterranean-style diet, and a NON-calorie-restricted low-carbohydrate diet. Even though the low-carb dieters were not restricting their calorie intake at all, they still lost more weight than either of the other calorie-restricted diets. Also, the subjects on the Mediterranean-style diet lost more weight than those on the low-fat diet, even though they were both supposedly restricting calorie intake to the same amount.
Clearly, there's something more going on with weight loss than total energy balance. And, given that low-carb diets are more effective for weight loss (as the eight (!) studies I linked to above show), I think even you would have to consider the possibility that macronutrient composition of the diet may have something to do with the matter.
Oh look a study where they controlled for calories:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2015.07.021Calorie for Calorie, Dietary Fat Restriction Results in More Body Fat Loss than Carbohydrate Restriction in People with Obesity
I am not pro-low-fat. Just stating there is little study evidence that low-carb is strictly better for weight loss, when calories and medical issues are controlled.
0 -
Ariellebruno wrote: »I know you probably hear these all the time, but I went from eating so much junk and whatever I wanted probably over 3000 every day to 1300 tracking everything and walking frequently. I was so good this weekend and went for an hour hike each day I was so excited to step on the scale this morning and nothing.. I don't get it especially because I have a lot of weight to loose I thought it would drop a lot quicker.
There are mistakes that people commonly make that cause them to not lose weight that we might be able to spot if you change your Diary Sharing settings to Public: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/account/diary_settings0 -
Are you drinking diet soda or flavored waters that have a lot of sodium? I drank so much water this last week I felt like I was trying to drown my internal organs. Drinking water really does make a difference, it's especially noticeable in the beginning.
Snh. Diet sodas and flavoured waters do NOT have a lot of sodium in them.9 -
Aha! Breastfeeding!!!! The missing link! I nursed my daughter til she was a little over 2 years old. The weight only started dropping after I stopped nursing. Basically a breast feeding body hormonally is very similar to a pregnant body . Not all nursing moms experience this but I definitely did. Ive even read blogs of fitness athletes who are moms who could not get their bf% and last few lbs to shed til after nursing. It was frustrating but when I read that I figured if they can't trick their body then there's no way in going to. Just keep it light if you can a know that when your baby is ready to wean that you'll be ready to make some more progress. Still track cals to make sure your not going to gain ( which happened to me). Good luck!3
-
OP. I don't think you should eat any less. Your baby needs those calories. In fact, I believe breast feeding burns about an extra 500 calories a day. (Don't quote me on that. I've got some breastfeeding friends and they log a 500 calorie a day burn).
All this business about low carbing is not accurate. If you prefer to eat low carb because you feel full longer, that's fine. Don't get too caught up in the micro nutrients. It's not necessary for weight loss and you've already got enough going on with a baby.
If you aren't seeing loss after 3-4 weeks, make sure your portions are accurate. I'm great at eyeballing protien, but I can fit 2 cups of rice in a one cup measure, so I weigh my grains for accuracy.
Were it me, I'd set myself only to lose .5lbs a week and tighten up my logging of food. I would eat back at least 1/2 to all of my exercise calories earned. You don't have a ton to lose and you don't want to deprive yourself or child of needed nutrition. Once baby is weened, I would then re-evaluate whether I needed a bigger calorie deficit. Enjoy this time and connection with your baby. It doesn't last. The weight will come off.4 -
Set your diary to be open to public, then ask such a question.3
-
That's not the problem, ever.Ariellebruno wrote: »Could it because I eat late? Not bad food but say 900 calories is from 9-5 and the last 300 are always late after the kids fall asleep
1 -
Excellent points have been made so far. Are you keeping track of your calorie deficit? I was ready to blame my lack of weight loss on everything from birth control to the fact that I was "solid" and had a muscular body. The key for me was the deficit. You must create a substantial deficit between calories consumed and calories burned. You talked about going for a hike twice this past weekend. That may not be enough. How much activity are you getting during the week? Is it enough to build a deficit and support weight loss? 1lb is 3500 calories. You have to find a balance between what you eat and what you burn.
Do you know your BMR or TDEE? This could help you figure just how much energy you need to expend in order to make the scale move.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10300319/most-helpful-posts-general-diet-and-weight-loss-help-must-reads#latest0 -
Not losing weight doesn't always mean you're eating too much. If she's eating too little her body will go into starvation mode and then she won't lose weight either. Everyone is different and you have to figure out what works for you.
0 -
Not losing weight doesn't always mean you're eating too much. If she's eating too little her body will go into starvation mode and then she won't lose weight either. Everyone is different and you have to figure out what works for you.
There has to be one at every post... NO..that is not a thing.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/18
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
- 388 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