Meals to lose belly fat
Options
Replies
-
ReaderGirl3 wrote: »3
-
zuly886, watch your sugar intake. Sugar hides in many different forms. I was having trouble for awhile and could not understand why I wasn't losing any fat. I was eating at a low deficit calorie wise and exercising like crazy. When I examined my food choices, I was getting way too much sugar. I swapped out the bananas for strawberries/blueberries and I threw the low-fat/fat free stuff out like dannon's light and fit for regular greek yogurt. These items had higher calorie range, but had less sugar than the fat free/low fat stuff. Try getting your sugar under 25 grams a day and see if that doesn't help. Personally, upping my fat intake and lowering the carbs has done wonders for me. Too many carbs turn to sugar.1
-
Sorry if my post was confusing yes i know there is no meals to lose fat i should had especify what i meant was meals that help with fat lose and things i could do to lose belly fat
You lose weight by having a calorie deficit. You create a deficit by eating fewer calories or burning more calories through activity. It does not matter what type of food you eat, just the number of calories.
There is nothing you can eat or drink that will attack just your belly fat. You lose weight all over your body when you lose weight. If you carry a lot of weight in your belly (or hips or thighs) then it will take longer for the fat built up in that area to reduce compared to the areas with less fat. Just keep a calorie deficit and be patient.
To help you use the tools MFP provides. Set up a calorie goal. If you are 50 lbs or less overweight 1 lb a week is reasonable. Eat the amount MFP tells you to eat. Log everything you consume as accurately as you can. A food scale is very helpful.
I find prelogging my food to be pretty helpful too.3 -
zuly886, watch your sugar intake. Sugar hides in many different forms. I was having trouble for awhile and could not understand why I wasn't losing any fat. I was eating at a low deficit calorie wise and exercising like crazy. When I examined my food choices, I was getting way too much sugar. I swapped out the bananas for strawberries/blueberries and I threw the low-fat/fat free stuff out like dannon's light and fit for regular greek yogurt. These items had higher calorie range, but had less sugar than the fat free/low fat stuff. Try getting your sugar under 25 grams a day and see if that doesn't help. Personally, upping my fat intake and lowering the carbs has done wonders for me. Too many carbs turn to sugar.
If you weren't losing fat, you weren't in a deficit.
Sugar doesn't cause you to not lose weight. Excess calories cause you to not lose weight.9 -
zuly886, watch your sugar intake. Sugar hides in many different forms. I was having trouble for awhile and could not understand why I wasn't losing any fat. I was eating at a low deficit calorie wise and exercising like crazy. When I examined my food choices, I was getting way too much sugar. I swapped out the bananas for strawberries/blueberries and I threw the low-fat/fat free stuff out like dannon's light and fit for regular greek yogurt. These items had higher calorie range, but had less sugar than the fat free/low fat stuff. Try getting your sugar under 25 grams a day and see if that doesn't help. Personally, upping my fat intake and lowering the carbs has done wonders for me. Too many carbs turn to sugar.
No to pretty much all of this. If you weren't losing weight, you weren't in a calorie deficit, sugar or otherwise.6 -
Just want to reiterate that not losing weight means you are not in a deficit and that sugar has nothing to do with it5
-
OP-Start strength training ASAP! When I began my weight loss journey I did nothing but cardio. I regret that now. Weight training will help all areas of your body including your stomach. Good luck with the rest of your journey!0
-
I think there are actually two issues being brought up here: (1) fat, and (2) inflammation - which are fundamentally two different things, although both make your abdomen larger.
I recently did a full 30 day detox where I cut out grains, dairy, alcohol, soy, and added sweeteners. Without counting calories, I lost 10 pounds, and my abdomen was undeniably slimmer. I went down a dress size. My acne cleared; my digestion improved... But what, exactly, did I lose when those pounds came off? I doubt it was necessarily fat, because as soon as I began adding 'forbidden' foods back in, I 'gained' back half of what I lost within a week...
Because of this experience, I conclude that inflammation is real, and there are, indeed, certain foods that aggravate it (which can vary from person to person). But when you go on an anti-inflammation diet, understand that you are not, per se, losing fat. Your body size and weight reduce because of a reduction in inflammation, not fat. And inflammation can fluctuate daily (even throughout the day) on the basis of what you ate that particular day; whereas, fat loss takes time and is more permanent in the long run.
I also want to point out that, while calorie reduction is a factor in weight loss, it is but one factor. The quality of those calories matters (e.g. eating a 200 calorie candy bar vs. a 200 calorie salad). Don't just create a deficient, but spend your calories on nutritionally whole foods. How well you sleep, manage stress, etc. also factor in. The more of a holistic approach you take to your health, rather than focusing on one part of your body or only one tool for weight loss, the better your overall results will be.
Hope that helps!
2 -
WinoGelato, I wasn't losing because I was carb loading way too much and yes, I was in a deficit. 1200-1400 range and burning way more than I was consuming. I thought it was ok to do because I am weight lifting. Not so. I wasn't eating enough vegetables or protein and relied mainly on grain carbs, but I was "in a deficit". I am eating at higher range, more like 1800 now, came way down on the sugar and carbs, and guess what, I am losing fat.. not weight, FAT. I don't go by the scale, I stick with measurements. So you can say it's wrong, but I know different, I am seeing it in body composition and on the scale. I am just one that my body does not play well with grains or too much sugar and cutting those things out made all the difference. When you are older, things start changing and sometimes the same rules don't apply. But thank you for your expertise.0
-
Seriously if you are burning way more than you consume you would lose weight3
-
WinoGelato, I wasn't losing because I was carb loading way too much and yes, I was in a deficit. 1200-1400 range and burning way more than I was consuming. I wasn't eating enough vegetables or protein and relied mainly on grain carbs. I thought it was ok because I was "in a deficit". I am eating at higher range, more like 1800 now, came way down on the sugar and carbs, and guess what, I am losing fat.. not weight, FAT. I don't go by the scale, I stick with measurements. So you can say it's wrong, but I know different, I am seeing it in body composition and on the scale. But thank you for your expertise.
CICO rules supreme! You were not in a deficit. Science, baby!4 -
WinoGelato, I wasn't losing because I was carb loading way too much and yes, I was in a deficit. 1200-1400 range and burning way more than I was consuming. I wasn't eating enough vegetables or protein and relied mainly on grain carbs. I thought it was ok because I was "in a deficit". I am eating at higher range, more like 1800 now, came way down on the sugar and carbs, and guess what, I am losing fat.. not weight, FAT. I don't go by the scale, I stick with measurements. So you can say it's wrong, but I know different, I am seeing it in body composition and on the scale. But thank you for your expertise.
It just doesn't work like that. If it did, you would have defied the laws of thermodynamics. In order to lose weight, you must be in a calorie deficit, your CI<CO. It is completely possible that the foods you were eating, which were calorie dense, were putting you in a surplus, and them when you changed up your diet, particularly cutting carbs you lost water weight and then continued to lose because you are now in a calorie deficit.
Since you aren't relying on a scale for your weight I assume you aren't using a food scale either? It's very easy to consume more calories than you think, negating your deficit, when you aren't tracking accurately.
It's great you found something that works for you but your claim that the OP must cut sugar or carbs in order to lose weight is not a requirement.6 -
CICO...1
-
ivanfawcettgibson wrote: »Erm, I don't eat at a deficit. I lost weight, well used some of the fat store I have.
I cut carbs - bread, pasta and root veg. Increased fat intake to 70%. Moderate protein at 20% and low carbs 10%.
So you lost weight in a caloric surplus?1 -
ReaderGirl3 wrote: »My stomach is flat. And a lot of inches around the waist come from not just fat but bloating and inflammation from sodium and foods we eat. As well as food allergens that can cause bloating. Knowledge about this can help reduce the waistline. The only thing in my initial comment I would steer clear of is the smoothies bc that can cause bloating or unwanted sugar.
My stomach is also flat. I don't eat green apples. Or drink green tea or Yerba mate. Or consume ginger or turmeric.
I win.
Seriously though, if someone has a legitimate food allergy then of course they shouldn't eat those foods (bloating would be the least of their worries in that case). Sodium causes temporary water retention. So what? It's not actual fat/weight gains. Which is what the OP was asking about in her first post.
And it looks like 'inflammation' is the new fad buzz word sigh....
OP-just focus on eating at the correct calorie deficit for you weight loss goals and you'll be successful
These were suggestions to help the original persons questions. These are things that have worked for me to achieve results if you have other things that work for you that's great. Everyone gives general answers and I wanted to offer something tangible. If you all disagree that's fine I hope the original person got something from the answers.
Those were the tools you used to achieve results. What got you results was an energy deficit. How you got results is not the same as why you got results. More then likely, you probably did not have to do any of that to get results...1 -
ivanfawcettgibson wrote: »What is it with some people?
No, of course I've never logged my calories
Then you have no way of knowing what you are claiming. Period, end of story...1 -
WinoGelato, I wasn't losing because I was carb loading way too much and yes, I was in a deficit. 1200-1400 range and burning way more than I was consuming. I thought it was ok to do because I am weight lifting. Not so. I wasn't eating enough vegetables or protein and relied mainly on grain carbs, but I was "in a deficit". I am eating at higher range, more like 1800 now, came way down on the sugar and carbs, and guess what, I am losing fat.. not weight, FAT. I don't go by the scale, I stick with measurements. So you can say it's wrong, but I know different, I am seeing it in body composition and on the scale. When you are older, things start changing and sometimes the same rules don't apply. But thank you for your expertise.
Just to point out, that when you switched from high carb to low carb foods, your body will deplete glycogen/water weight. It's also possible that switching to low carb has also increase your accuracy of your diary which has helped maintain a consistent calorie deficit. But also to point out, you only have 2 days in the 1800 range, the rest are below.... some are really below that range.
BTW, diary accuracy is very hard to achieve since even professions under count calories as much as 400 calories.2 -
WinoGelato, I wasn't losing because I was carb loading way too much and yes, I was in a deficit. 1200-1400 range and burning way more than I was consuming. I thought it was ok to do because I am weight lifting. Not so. I wasn't eating enough vegetables or protein and relied mainly on grain carbs, but I was "in a deficit". I am eating at higher range, more like 1800 now, came way down on the sugar and carbs, and guess what, I am losing fat.. not weight, FAT. I don't go by the scale, I stick with measurements. So you can say it's wrong, but I know different, I am seeing it in body composition and on the scale. I am just one that my body does not play well with grains or too much sugar and cutting those things out made all the difference. When you are older, things start changing and sometimes the same rules don't apply. But thank you for your expertise.
Your body doesn't know or care where calories come from when it comes to weight loss/gain. It is energy. If you consume too much energy over a period of time, you will store it as fat/muscle/both. If you don't consume enough, your body will burn fat/muscle/both to make up the difference. It can't just decide to hang on to fat if you're in an energy deficit because those calories happened to come from carbs. When your body breaks it all down, they are just calories.
You were probably either underestimating how much your intake was, or overestimating your burn. But you can't defy the laws of physics.1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato, I wasn't losing because I was carb loading way too much and yes, I was in a deficit. 1200-1400 range and burning way more than I was consuming. I wasn't eating enough vegetables or protein and relied mainly on grain carbs. I thought it was ok because I was "in a deficit". I am eating at higher range, more like 1800 now, came way down on the sugar and carbs, and guess what, I am losing fat.. not weight, FAT. I don't go by the scale, I stick with measurements. So you can say it's wrong, but I know different, I am seeing it in body composition and on the scale. But thank you for your expertise.
It just doesn't work like that. If it did, you would have defied the laws of thermodynamics. In order to lose weight, you must be in a calorie deficit, your CI<CO. It is completely possible that the foods you were eating, which were calorie dense, were putting you in a surplus, and them when you changed up your diet, particularly cutting carbs you lost water weight and then continued to lose because you are now in a calorie deficit.
Since you aren't relying on a scale for your weight I assume you aren't using a food scale either? It's very easy to consume more calories than you think, negating your deficit, when you aren't tracking accurately.
It's great you found something that works for you but your claim that the OP must cut sugar or carbs in order to lose weight is not a requirement.
I was eyeballing for a while, but have been consistent with the scale since January. Please note that I never said it was a requirement, but rather something to try. I have learned my lesson here. I think it is best that I just don't share my experiences with this journey on MFP. I certainly don't want to give wrong information or derail anyone else. I am not an expert, I just know what worked for me. So not to do that anymore, I'll just go back to the shadows of lurking and leave the advice giving to others. Thank you all for your responses.
Marabeara, thank you. I think you hit the hammer on the head with it. That's been my exact experience.1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato, I wasn't losing because I was carb loading way too much and yes, I was in a deficit. 1200-1400 range and burning way more than I was consuming. I wasn't eating enough vegetables or protein and relied mainly on grain carbs. I thought it was ok because I was "in a deficit". I am eating at higher range, more like 1800 now, came way down on the sugar and carbs, and guess what, I am losing fat.. not weight, FAT. I don't go by the scale, I stick with measurements. So you can say it's wrong, but I know different, I am seeing it in body composition and on the scale. But thank you for your expertise.
It just doesn't work like that. If it did, you would have defied the laws of thermodynamics. In order to lose weight, you must be in a calorie deficit, your CI<CO. It is completely possible that the foods you were eating, which were calorie dense, were putting you in a surplus, and them when you changed up your diet, particularly cutting carbs you lost water weight and then continued to lose because you are now in a calorie deficit.
Since you aren't relying on a scale for your weight I assume you aren't using a food scale either? It's very easy to consume more calories than you think, negating your deficit, when you aren't tracking accurately.
It's great you found something that works for you but your claim that the OP must cut sugar or carbs in order to lose weight is not a requirement.
I was eyeballing for a while, but have been consistent with the scale since January. Please note that I never said it was a requirement, but rather something to try. I have learned my lesson here. I think it is best that I just don't share my experiences with this journey on MFP. I certainly don't want to give wrong information or derail anyone else. I am not an expert, I just know what worked for me. So not to do that anymore, I'll just go back to the shadows of lurking and leave the advice giving to others. Thank you all for your responses.
Marabeara, thank you. I think you hit the hammer on the head with it. That's been my exact experience.
And there's the problem. You were eating more than you thought, thus you were not in a deficit.
Cut carbs and tighten up logging (by actually weight food) and viola, you have a deficit.6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 393 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 938 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions