Why can't I seem to lose even one pound?
alg324
Posts: 8 Member
After suffering a bout of pneumonia in February, I realized my stamina was terrible. I could barely make it up a set of stairs without getting winded. I also gained about 5 pounds in addition to my usual winter weight and am now 15 pounds higher than where I am comfortable.
At 44, I have usually been able to take weight off with portion control and being lightly active.
That did not work for me at all in March, so I stepped up my game in April. I logged all my food. No junk food, no fast food. I tried to eliminate as much extra sugar as I could. Cut the occasional soda, stopped my sometimes sweet tea. Tried to cut back on white carbs as much as possible. So really, went from just portion control to also trying to be much more mindful of WHAT I was eating.
Additionally, I started to increase my activity. Walking, cutting grass and trying to hit a step goal daily. Trying to drink half my body weight in water daily. Taking a good multi-vitamin.
My result at the end of April? Not one pound lost. Not one pound gained. Measurements did not change at all either.
Am I stuck at this weight now because I am getting older? Or do I need to be super vigilant about food tracking ... Down to the fat gram?
It sure doesn't seem like a simple CICO formula is working for me.
My food logs are not in MFP ... I started in another App and decided I wanted to come back to this one... I just haven't made the move as I don't want to lose my past logs or retyoe all of them.
The other app keeps telling me I will hit my goal weight the first week of August don't see how that can happen with zero weight change so far?
At 44, I have usually been able to take weight off with portion control and being lightly active.
That did not work for me at all in March, so I stepped up my game in April. I logged all my food. No junk food, no fast food. I tried to eliminate as much extra sugar as I could. Cut the occasional soda, stopped my sometimes sweet tea. Tried to cut back on white carbs as much as possible. So really, went from just portion control to also trying to be much more mindful of WHAT I was eating.
Additionally, I started to increase my activity. Walking, cutting grass and trying to hit a step goal daily. Trying to drink half my body weight in water daily. Taking a good multi-vitamin.
My result at the end of April? Not one pound lost. Not one pound gained. Measurements did not change at all either.
Am I stuck at this weight now because I am getting older? Or do I need to be super vigilant about food tracking ... Down to the fat gram?
It sure doesn't seem like a simple CICO formula is working for me.
My food logs are not in MFP ... I started in another App and decided I wanted to come back to this one... I just haven't made the move as I don't want to lose my past logs or retyoe all of them.
The other app keeps telling me I will hit my goal weight the first week of August don't see how that can happen with zero weight change so far?
1
Replies
-
I'm almost 6 years older than you, perimenopausal, and when I weigh my food on a digital food scale, eat the calories MFP gives me, eat some (but not all) of my exercise calories, I lose as expected.
Are you using a digital food scale? What do you do with exercise calories?3 -
No, you obviously aren't stuck at your current weight because you are getting older. If you aren't losing, and aren't gaining, that means you are at maintenance, or more specifically, consuming as many calories as you are burning.
Am I stuck at this weight now because I am getting older? Or do I need to be super vigilant about food tracking ... Down to the fat gram?
The best you can tell, you think you should be losing, so you need to figure out what you are doing wrong. It's as simple as, you are not burning as many calories as you think you are, consuming more than you think you are, or both.
Fat grams don't matter as far as losing weight. White carbs - whatever that is - are not a consideration either. It's just the amount of calories in versus the calories out, and if you are an exception to that rule then submit your body to science as that is currently considered beyond known physics.
To make a long story long; MAKE SURE you are logging correctly. Worry about calories, eat a well balanced diet and your micros should be fine. The concept of what it takes to lose weight it not hard to comprehend, but it's the attention to detail most people over look.
5 -
@ncboiler89 covered it all very well.
Additionally, if you're really sure you're in deficit and nothing is moving after two months, I'd advise seeing your doctor.1 -
I'm 44 too, and have lost weight with no problems.
As long as I weigh all my food on a digital food scale and honestly and accurately log everything, then I lose weight. If you've been stuck at the same weight this means you are eating your maintenance calories, and are not in a deficit.1 -
How often are you weighing yourself? Are you keeping track of your weight to see the trends?
If you weighed at the beginning of the month and again at the end but nowhere in between, natural weight fluctuations could be why you appeared to weigh the same.
A trending app like Happy Scale or Libra, or even trendweight (website, I believe) can help you see that you may have actually lost weight overall and we're just having a heavier day due to water or sodium.1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »I'm almost 6 years older than you, perimenopausal, and when I weigh my food on a digital food scale, eat the calories MFP gives me, eat some (but not all) of my exercise calories, I lose as expected.
Are you using a digital food scale? What do you do with exercise calories?
Me too, pretty much exactly ... and I have the same questions.
0 -
I'm 48 premenopausal and struggling to. I am very active move 14 hours a day and step count is around 20,000 a day and I eat properly. In the past I have never had a problem with my weight and if I put a few pounds on I just cut back and it disappeared quickly. I now can't lose weight my body is carrying weight differently where as before it was straight on my boobs it now sits round my tummy where as before I had a six pack. I putting down to hormone changes. It's so depressing after having a fit shapely body to having a belly!!!0
-
Has your situation improved? I'm at the stage of nothing working to even shift one pound!!! So depressing and now I have an injury. Hints and tips?0
-
OP's last log in was months ago.funkythreads2004 wrote: »Has your situation improved? I'm at the stage of nothing working to even shift one pound!!! So depressing and now I have an injury. Hints and tips?
2 -
I know the OP isn't here any longer, but one thing to consider at that age is the possibility of low thyroid. I was in the same situation at about age 40. I was active, eating well, and couldn't lose weight. Doctors just said, "What do you expect; you're over 40." One finally asked if there was any family history of low thyroid. Sure enough. There was. So I got tested and found out my thyroid was out of whack. Once I got medication, I was able to lose weight again.0
-
ncboiler89 wrote: »
No, you obviously aren't stuck at your current weight because you are getting older. If you aren't losing, and aren't gaining, that means you are at maintenance, or more specifically, consuming as many calories as you are burning.
Am I stuck at this weight now because I am getting older? Or do I need to be super vigilant about food tracking ... Down to the fat gram?
The best you can tell, you think you should be losing, so you need to figure out what you are doing wrong. It's as simple as, you are not burning as many calories as you think you are, consuming more than you think you are, or both.
Fat grams don't matter as far as losing weight. White carbs - whatever that is - are not a consideration either. It's just the amount of calories in versus the calories out, and if you are an exception to that rule then submit your body to science as that is currently considered beyond known physics.
To make a long story long; MAKE SURE you are logging correctly. Worry about calories, eat a well balanced diet and your micros should be fine. The concept of what it takes to lose weight it not hard to comprehend, but it's the attention to detail most people over look.
I agree this person is probly not calculating correctly but your statement about physics is incorrect. Calories can be excreted without being used for energy or for fat storage. No violation of physics there. I believe fat can be liberated and excreted also independent of energy needs. No violation of physics there either.0 -
ncboiler89 wrote: »
No, you obviously aren't stuck at your current weight because you are getting older. If you aren't losing, and aren't gaining, that means you are at maintenance, or more specifically, consuming as many calories as you are burning.
Am I stuck at this weight now because I am getting older? Or do I need to be super vigilant about food tracking ... Down to the fat gram?
The best you can tell, you think you should be losing, so you need to figure out what you are doing wrong. It's as simple as, you are not burning as many calories as you think you are, consuming more than you think you are, or both.
Fat grams don't matter as far as losing weight. White carbs - whatever that is - are not a consideration either. It's just the amount of calories in versus the calories out, and if you are an exception to that rule then submit your body to science as that is currently considered beyond known physics.
To make a long story long; MAKE SURE you are logging correctly. Worry about calories, eat a well balanced diet and your micros should be fine. The concept of what it takes to lose weight it not hard to comprehend, but it's the attention to detail most people over look.
I agree this person is probly not calculating correctly but your statement about physics is incorrect. Calories can be excreted without being used for energy or for fat storage. No violation of physics there. I believe fat can be liberated and excreted also independent of energy needs. No violation of physics there either.
You are entitled to your own beliefs, but without science to back it up, it's not a relevant argument.
4 -
Explain how.ncboiler89 wrote: »
No, you obviously aren't stuck at your current weight because you are getting older. If you aren't losing, and aren't gaining, that means you are at maintenance, or more specifically, consuming as many calories as you are burning.
Am I stuck at this weight now because I am getting older? Or do I need to be super vigilant about food tracking ... Down to the fat gram?
The best you can tell, you think you should be losing, so you need to figure out what you are doing wrong. It's as simple as, you are not burning as many calories as you think you are, consuming more than you think you are, or both.
Fat grams don't matter as far as losing weight. White carbs - whatever that is - are not a consideration either. It's just the amount of calories in versus the calories out, and if you are an exception to that rule then submit your body to science as that is currently considered beyond known physics.
To make a long story long; MAKE SURE you are logging correctly. Worry about calories, eat a well balanced diet and your micros should be fine. The concept of what it takes to lose weight it not hard to comprehend, but it's the attention to detail most people over look.
I agree this person is probly not calculating correctly but your statement about physics is incorrect. Calories can be excreted without being used for energy or for fat storage. No violation of physics there. I believe fat can be liberated and excreted also independent of energy needs. No violation of physics there either.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2 -
Explain how.ncboiler89 wrote: »
No, you obviously aren't stuck at your current weight because you are getting older. If you aren't losing, and aren't gaining, that means you are at maintenance, or more specifically, consuming as many calories as you are burning.
Am I stuck at this weight now because I am getting older? Or do I need to be super vigilant about food tracking ... Down to the fat gram?
The best you can tell, you think you should be losing, so you need to figure out what you are doing wrong. It's as simple as, you are not burning as many calories as you think you are, consuming more than you think you are, or both.
Fat grams don't matter as far as losing weight. White carbs - whatever that is - are not a consideration either. It's just the amount of calories in versus the calories out, and if you are an exception to that rule then submit your body to science as that is currently considered beyond known physics.
To make a long story long; MAKE SURE you are logging correctly. Worry about calories, eat a well balanced diet and your micros should be fine. The concept of what it takes to lose weight it not hard to comprehend, but it's the attention to detail most people over look.
I agree this person is probly not calculating correctly but your statement about physics is incorrect. Calories can be excreted without being used for energy or for fat storage. No violation of physics there. I believe fat can be liberated and excreted also independent of energy needs. No violation of physics there either.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Magic.3 -
ncboiler89 wrote: »
No, you obviously aren't stuck at your current weight because you are getting older. If you aren't losing, and aren't gaining, that means you are at maintenance, or more specifically, consuming as many calories as you are burning.
Am I stuck at this weight now because I am getting older? Or do I need to be super vigilant about food tracking ... Down to the fat gram?
The best you can tell, you think you should be losing, so you need to figure out what you are doing wrong. It's as simple as, you are not burning as many calories as you think you are, consuming more than you think you are, or both.
Fat grams don't matter as far as losing weight. White carbs - whatever that is - are not a consideration either. It's just the amount of calories in versus the calories out, and if you are an exception to that rule then submit your body to science as that is currently considered beyond known physics.
To make a long story long; MAKE SURE you are logging correctly. Worry about calories, eat a well balanced diet and your micros should be fine. The concept of what it takes to lose weight it not hard to comprehend, but it's the attention to detail most people over look.
I agree this person is probly not calculating correctly but your statement about physics is incorrect. Calories can be excreted without being used for energy or for fat storage. No violation of physics there. I believe fat can be liberated and excreted also independent of energy needs. No violation of physics there either.
Vomiting? Liposuction?
3 -
ncboiler89 wrote: »
No, you obviously aren't stuck at your current weight because you are getting older. If you aren't losing, and aren't gaining, that means you are at maintenance, or more specifically, consuming as many calories as you are burning.
Am I stuck at this weight now because I am getting older? Or do I need to be super vigilant about food tracking ... Down to the fat gram?
The best you can tell, you think you should be losing, so you need to figure out what you are doing wrong. It's as simple as, you are not burning as many calories as you think you are, consuming more than you think you are, or both.
Fat grams don't matter as far as losing weight. White carbs - whatever that is - are not a consideration either. It's just the amount of calories in versus the calories out, and if you are an exception to that rule then submit your body to science as that is currently considered beyond known physics.
To make a long story long; MAKE SURE you are logging correctly. Worry about calories, eat a well balanced diet and your micros should be fine. The concept of what it takes to lose weight it not hard to comprehend, but it's the attention to detail most people over look.
I agree this person is probly not calculating correctly but your statement about physics is incorrect. Calories can be excreted without being used for energy or for fat storage. No violation of physics there. I believe fat can be liberated and excreted also independent of energy needs. No violation of physics there either.
Vomiting? Liposuction?
Orange oily discharge if you are on certain medications?5 -
ncboiler89 wrote: »
No, you obviously aren't stuck at your current weight because you are getting older. If you aren't losing, and aren't gaining, that means you are at maintenance, or more specifically, consuming as many calories as you are burning.
Am I stuck at this weight now because I am getting older? Or do I need to be super vigilant about food tracking ... Down to the fat gram?
The best you can tell, you think you should be losing, so you need to figure out what you are doing wrong. It's as simple as, you are not burning as many calories as you think you are, consuming more than you think you are, or both.
Fat grams don't matter as far as losing weight. White carbs - whatever that is - are not a consideration either. It's just the amount of calories in versus the calories out, and if you are an exception to that rule then submit your body to science as that is currently considered beyond known physics.
To make a long story long; MAKE SURE you are logging correctly. Worry about calories, eat a well balanced diet and your micros should be fine. The concept of what it takes to lose weight it not hard to comprehend, but it's the attention to detail most people over look.
I agree this person is probly not calculating correctly but your statement about physics is incorrect. Calories can be excreted without being used for energy or for fat storage. No violation of physics there. I believe fat can be liberated and excreted also independent of energy needs. No violation of physics there either.
7 -
Explain how.ncboiler89 wrote: »
No, you obviously aren't stuck at your current weight because you are getting older. If you aren't losing, and aren't gaining, that means you are at maintenance, or more specifically, consuming as many calories as you are burning.
Am I stuck at this weight now because I am getting older? Or do I need to be super vigilant about food tracking ... Down to the fat gram?
The best you can tell, you think you should be losing, so you need to figure out what you are doing wrong. It's as simple as, you are not burning as many calories as you think you are, consuming more than you think you are, or both.
Fat grams don't matter as far as losing weight. White carbs - whatever that is - are not a consideration either. It's just the amount of calories in versus the calories out, and if you are an exception to that rule then submit your body to science as that is currently considered beyond known physics.
To make a long story long; MAKE SURE you are logging correctly. Worry about calories, eat a well balanced diet and your micros should be fine. The concept of what it takes to lose weight it not hard to comprehend, but it's the attention to detail most people over look.
I agree this person is probly not calculating correctly but your statement about physics is incorrect. Calories can be excreted without being used for energy or for fat storage. No violation of physics there. I believe fat can be liberated and excreted also independent of energy needs. No violation of physics there either.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Are there not drugs that make people lose weight? Weight loss that way would be by that mode. I'm not saying people should use drugs to lose weight, but it shows that some weight can be lost without having to have a deficit.0 -
Explain how.ncboiler89 wrote: »
No, you obviously aren't stuck at your current weight because you are getting older. If you aren't losing, and aren't gaining, that means you are at maintenance, or more specifically, consuming as many calories as you are burning.
Am I stuck at this weight now because I am getting older? Or do I need to be super vigilant about food tracking ... Down to the fat gram?
The best you can tell, you think you should be losing, so you need to figure out what you are doing wrong. It's as simple as, you are not burning as many calories as you think you are, consuming more than you think you are, or both.
Fat grams don't matter as far as losing weight. White carbs - whatever that is - are not a consideration either. It's just the amount of calories in versus the calories out, and if you are an exception to that rule then submit your body to science as that is currently considered beyond known physics.
To make a long story long; MAKE SURE you are logging correctly. Worry about calories, eat a well balanced diet and your micros should be fine. The concept of what it takes to lose weight it not hard to comprehend, but it's the attention to detail most people over look.
I agree this person is probly not calculating correctly but your statement about physics is incorrect. Calories can be excreted without being used for energy or for fat storage. No violation of physics there. I believe fat can be liberated and excreted also independent of energy needs. No violation of physics there either.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Are there not drugs that make people lose weight? Weight loss that way would be by that mode. I'm not saying people should use drugs to lose weight, but it shows that some weight can be lost without having to have a deficit.
Actual, effective drugs either increase your BMR (CO) through caffeine or other stimulants or limit your bodies ability to used the calories it takes in (thinking Alli??) through blocking fat uptake so your body never really gets the fat in the first place. I know of none that will actually take the fat that exists and excrete it without it being burned for energy first. If you know of some, please post a link to them. If they exist, I doubt they are legal.
Can you give some insight into why you think what you do?1 -
Explain how.ncboiler89 wrote: »
No, you obviously aren't stuck at your current weight because you are getting older. If you aren't losing, and aren't gaining, that means you are at maintenance, or more specifically, consuming as many calories as you are burning.
Am I stuck at this weight now because I am getting older? Or do I need to be super vigilant about food tracking ... Down to the fat gram?
The best you can tell, you think you should be losing, so you need to figure out what you are doing wrong. It's as simple as, you are not burning as many calories as you think you are, consuming more than you think you are, or both.
Fat grams don't matter as far as losing weight. White carbs - whatever that is - are not a consideration either. It's just the amount of calories in versus the calories out, and if you are an exception to that rule then submit your body to science as that is currently considered beyond known physics.
To make a long story long; MAKE SURE you are logging correctly. Worry about calories, eat a well balanced diet and your micros should be fine. The concept of what it takes to lose weight it not hard to comprehend, but it's the attention to detail most people over look.
I agree this person is probly not calculating correctly but your statement about physics is incorrect. Calories can be excreted without being used for energy or for fat storage. No violation of physics there. I believe fat can be liberated and excreted also independent of energy needs. No violation of physics there either.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Magic.
Far from magic. A calorie surplus is a necessary condition for fat gain (energy has to come from somewhere) but isn't sufficient. It needs to be stored also which requires elevated levels of insulin doesn't it? If it isn't stored, it is excreted.
An overall calorie deficit is a sufficient condition to lose weight (energy has to come from somewhere) but there are other ways fat can be liberated also 9drugs, etc)
0 -
Explain how.ncboiler89 wrote: »
No, you obviously aren't stuck at your current weight because you are getting older. If you aren't losing, and aren't gaining, that means you are at maintenance, or more specifically, consuming as many calories as you are burning.
Am I stuck at this weight now because I am getting older? Or do I need to be super vigilant about food tracking ... Down to the fat gram?
The best you can tell, you think you should be losing, so you need to figure out what you are doing wrong. It's as simple as, you are not burning as many calories as you think you are, consuming more than you think you are, or both.
Fat grams don't matter as far as losing weight. White carbs - whatever that is - are not a consideration either. It's just the amount of calories in versus the calories out, and if you are an exception to that rule then submit your body to science as that is currently considered beyond known physics.
To make a long story long; MAKE SURE you are logging correctly. Worry about calories, eat a well balanced diet and your micros should be fine. The concept of what it takes to lose weight it not hard to comprehend, but it's the attention to detail most people over look.
I agree this person is probly not calculating correctly but your statement about physics is incorrect. Calories can be excreted without being used for energy or for fat storage. No violation of physics there. I believe fat can be liberated and excreted also independent of energy needs. No violation of physics there either.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Magic.
Far from magic. A calorie surplus is a necessary condition for fat gain (energy has to come from somewhere) but isn't sufficient. It needs to be stored also which requires elevated levels of insulin doesn't it? If it isn't stored, it is excreted.
An overall calorie deficit is a sufficient condition to lose weight (energy has to come from somewhere) but there are other ways fat can be liberated also 9drugs, etc)
There aren't drugs that make you excrete things without your body breaking them down for energy first. That's not how it works.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