Working out BUT gaining weight
Options
Replies
-
I guess my point is, regardless of having to weigh my food, if I ate any less then I do I would be starving to death. Low fat, no bread, high protien, low carb. So no need to get angry michelle lei. I'm just saying if you have a pound of boneless, skinless chicken breast and divide it into 4 portions through out the week, its going to be pretty dam close to about a 4 oz portion. I highly doubt that a 6 ounce can of tuna has more then 6 oz of tuna in it. In fact it probably has less. So so I have to weigh my eggs as well or is an egg just an egg. I hardboil or poach them.
1 -
Quite the opposite: The can needs to meet the legal wiehgt it has stated on the label. As the weighing machines have a margin or error they are set to a slightly higerh weigh (depending on foodstuff that can be a 2-5% tolerance0 So the settign of the machien will pack it at 102 -105% of the stated weight.Lysbethskotzke wrote: »I highly doubt that a 6 ounce can of tuna has more then 6 oz of tuna in it. In fact it probably has less.
When inspectors come (and they do) They take select randomly a statistical number of cans and will weigh the contect - all of them If that weight is under the stated label weight the food production company will get a hefty fine.
So you see always weigh as the law on eight labelling will lead to overpacking.
0 -
Lysbethskotzke wrote: »I guess my point is, regardless of having to weigh my food, if I ate any less then I do I would be starving to death. Low fat, no bread, high protien, low carb. So no need to get angry michelle lei. I'm just saying if you have a pound of boneless, skinless chicken breast and divide it into 4 portions through out the week, its going to be pretty dam close to about a 4 oz portion. I highly doubt that a 6 ounce can of tuna has more then 6 oz of tuna in it. In fact it probably has less. So so I have to weigh my eggs as well or is an egg just an egg. I hardboil or poach them.
I'm not trying to be mean, just trying to help you out. Look some things I don't weigh. I don't weigh eggs, low calorie vegetables, and honestly guesstimate low calorie fruit, but I'm also losing at a reasonable pace. If I stop seeing any progress, then I will tighten up and start logging and weighing more accurately. If what you're doing right now is not working for you, something has to change. Believe it or not little things add up. 0.3 oz more tuna is +9 calories, 20g more apple is +10, 2g more of bread +20, 2g more olive oil +18, etc.
Weighing your food doesn't always mean you'll end up eating less, in fact you may get to eat more. When I started weighing my food, I realized that I was underestimating calorically dense foods like peanut butter and cereal, but I was also overestimating high volume foods like fruits and vegetables.1 -
Mavrick_RN wrote: »Depending on your workouts - you might be gaining muscle (which is heavier than fat). I've been on the same weight for a REALLY long time (over a year) but the way I look has changed a lot. But then again - my goal is to lose fat and not weight (although I wouldn't mind that too
)
Seriously ????
I'm having a Twilight Zone moment. When Oh When, will this muscle heavier than fat misguided thinking STOP.
True, you are correct, muscle is NOT heavier than fat. 1 (one) pound is 1 (one) pound, whether it is fat or muscle. The difference is, that muscle is MORE DENSE. Thus, supposedly you can fit more muscle into the same "space".
??
3 -
@Lysbethskotzke, it's really hard to guess what could be going wrong if you are eyeballing portions and we can't see your food log.
Get a food scale and commit to using it for two weeks. Weigh as much of your food as you possibly can, and log everything, including beverages, condiments, cooking oils, etc. View it as a science experiment.
Once the two weeks are up, look back over your diary. Are there things that jump at at you? Like foods that take up a lot of your calories but maybe aren't really that important or satiating. On the days you hit your goal easily and felt good, what did you eat? Are there foods that show up on all the days you struggled? Maybe a macro will jump out at you, like days you ate more fat you did better. This short time of weighing may also lead you to discover there is one specific food you are underestimating and spending a lot of unnoticed calories on.
While I always suggest making a food scale a habit, if you don't want to then at least use it for a couple of weeks so you have some hard data to work with. I bet whatever the issue is will jump right out at you and you can come up with tweaks to your plan that will get you back on track. Good luck!3 -
Mavrick_RN wrote: »Depending on your workouts - you might be gaining muscle (which is heavier than fat). I've been on the same weight for a REALLY long time (over a year) but the way I look has changed a lot. But then again - my goal is to lose fat and not weight (although I wouldn't mind that too )
Seriously ????
I'm having a Twilight Zone moment. When Oh When, will this muscle heavier than fat misguided thinking STOP.
True, you are correct, muscle is NOT heavier than fat. 1 (one) pound is 1 (one) pound, whether it is fat or muscle. The difference is, that muscle is MORE DENSE. Thus, supposedly you can fit more muscle into the same "space".
??
Yes, but it's difficult to build muscle (especially for women), you need to be eating enough and working the muscles for an extended period of time. And this is often aimed at women who are eating at a deficit and doing mostly cardio. So it's frustrating when a young woman posts that she is eating 1200 calories and on the treadmill every day but not losing weight, and someone says Maybe you are building muscle!4 -
Depending on your workouts - you might be gaining muscle (which is heavier than fat). I've been on the same weight for a REALLY long time (over a year) but the way I look has changed a lot. But then again - my goal is to lose fat and not weight (although I wouldn't mind that too )
What's up with all the bro/sista science on here? Muscle is not heavier than fat, they both weight exactly the same. It's the volume of mass that is different. Muscle is more dense so takes up less space than fat but a pound of muscle (although smaller looking) weights the exact same as a pound of fat.3 -
Mavrick_RN wrote: »Depending on your workouts - you might be gaining muscle (which is heavier than fat). I've been on the same weight for a REALLY long time (over a year) but the way I look has changed a lot. But then again - my goal is to lose fat and not weight (although I wouldn't mind that too )
Seriously ????
I'm having a Twilight Zone moment. When Oh When, will this muscle heavier than fat misguided thinking STOP.
True, you are correct, muscle is NOT heavier than fat. 1 (one) pound is 1 (one) pound, whether it is fat or muscle. The difference is, that muscle is MORE DENSE. Thus, supposedly you can fit more muscle into the same "space".
??
Yes, but it's difficult to build muscle (especially for women), you need to be eating enough and working the muscles for an extended period of time. And this is often aimed at women who are eating at a deficit and doing mostly cardio. So it's frustrating when a young woman posts that she is eating 1200 calories and on the treadmill every day but not losing weight, and someone says Maybe you are building muscle!
You said it Bro!
The "You might be accidentally building muscle" stuff is so whack-a-doodle. Building muscle takes WORK!
0 -
Some of us can be successful using measuring cups & spoons and eye balling foods. I managed to lose a lot of weight this way and have kept it off for over 2-1/2 years now.
If you are not losing weight you need to be sure about EVERYTHING (even the "just a little tastes") that you are eating and drinking. Use a food scale for accuracy. Log EVERY SINGLE THING YOU EAT AND DRINK. Do not overestimate your calorie burn. If you are still not losing, it may be time to see a doctor to eliminate and health factors that may be an issue.0 -
hollyrayburn wrote: »joeysgirl10 wrote: »Believe it or not... you may not be eating enough calories to lose weight.... if you are not eating enough your body will go into starvation and prevent you from losing weight. Especially if you are very active. Your body needs fuel and if you are not giving it enough it will hold onto the fat!
YOu do not lose weight from eating two few calories. That's not how science works.
You're probably eating too much. Are you weighing all your food?
Just wanted to repeat this so OP doesn't miss it.
If OP is really eating 1200 cals per day, she is not building muscle. And eating too little does not stop you from losing weight, otherwise anorexics and starving children wouldn't waste away.
I also want to second this. Eating too few calories doesn't cause you to gain weight. More and more studies show this.
Some advice I can give:
1. Make sure you weigh out everything on a food scale. Everything.
2. Whenever I hit a weight loss plateau for a week, I will ramp up my food from 1200 to 2000 for one day. Not by eating unhealthy tho and my weight goes back on the down spiral.
3. Drink a lot more water and a let less salt. Too much salt will cause water retention. Too little water will cause your kidneys not to work as well and your liver has to pick up the pace. In peak conditions your liver metabolizes that fat...if it has to take over from what your kidneys aren't doing optimally, the liver can't devote as much to fat metabolism
0 -
adevlin0403 wrote: »hollyrayburn wrote: »joeysgirl10 wrote: »Believe it or not... you may not be eating enough calories to lose weight.... if you are not eating enough your body will go into starvation and prevent you from losing weight. Especially if you are very active. Your body needs fuel and if you are not giving it enough it will hold onto the fat!
YOu do not lose weight from eating two few calories. That's not how science works.
You're probably eating too much. Are you weighing all your food?
Yes you do actually. I've read about it many places and from many weight loss doctor. If your starving , your body will try to store as much fat to keep you up and running . like a car , you need gas to drive right. There's a difference between dieting healthy and extreme where your body can't function correctly
That's not true. Current controlled studies shows that to be false thinking.
1. Calories in calories out
2. If weight gain is happening then it's either calorie creep or water retention
3. If it's water retention then you're not a. Drinking enough water or b. Eating too much sodium
I've lost almost 60 pounds in three months eating a 1200 calorie diet plus exercising off 600 to 800 calories off a day. My body is losing just fine. My blood tests came back and everything is exactly where it should be.
Malnourishment doesn't come from the lack of food you eat. It comes from the TYPES of food you eat.1 -
Annahbananas wrote: »That's not true. Current controlled studies shows that to be false thinking.
1. Calories in calories out
2. If weight gain is happening then it's either calorie creep or water retention
3. If it's water retention then you're not a. Drinking enough water or b. Eating too much sodium
I've lost almost 60 pounds in three months eating a 1200 calorie diet plus exercising off 600 to 800 calories off a day. My body is losing just fine. My blood tests came back and everything is exactly where it should be.
Malnourishment doesn't come from the lack of food you eat. It comes from the TYPES of food you eat.
Sorry to snipe the thread, but did you get any loose skin after losing 60 pounds that fast?0 -
Yeah I did. I still have 40 left to lose but I'm grateful my insurance covers skin removal surgery. My doctor has to document the rashes that comes from it for 3 months to get qualified.
O be honest, even if I took it slow ...100 lbs will mess my skin up
1 -
Annahbananas wrote: »Yeah I did. I still have 40 left to lose but I'm grateful my insurance covers skin removal surgery. My doctor has to document the rashes that comes from it for 3 months to get qualified.
O be honest, even if I took it slow ...100 lbs will mess my skin up
I have the same concerns.0 -
dutchandkiwi wrote: »
Quite the opposite: The can needs to meet the legal wiehgt it has stated on the label. As the weighing machines have a margin or error they are set to a slightly higerh weigh (depending on foodstuff that can be a 2-5% tolerance0 So the settign of the machien will pack it at 102 -105% of the stated weight.Lysbethskotzke wrote: »I highly doubt that a 6 ounce can of tuna has more then 6 oz of tuna in it. In fact it probably has less.
When inspectors come (and they do) They take select randomly a statistical number of cans and will weigh the contect - all of them If that weight is under the stated label weight the food production company will get a hefty fine.
So you see always weigh as the law on eight labelling will lead to overpacking.
But tuna is packed in water, which adds to the weight of the can0 -
Lysbethskotzke wrote: »dutchandkiwi wrote: »
Quite the opposite: The can needs to meet the legal wiehgt it has stated on the label. As the weighing machines have a margin or error they are set to a slightly higerh weigh (depending on foodstuff that can be a 2-5% tolerance0 So the settign of the machien will pack it at 102 -105% of the stated weight.Lysbethskotzke wrote: »I highly doubt that a 6 ounce can of tuna has more then 6 oz of tuna in it. In fact it probably has less.
When inspectors come (and they do) They take select randomly a statistical number of cans and will weigh the contect - all of them If that weight is under the stated label weight the food production company will get a hefty fine.
So you see always weigh as the law on eight labelling will lead to overpacking.
But tuna is packed in water, which adds to the weight of the can
Sure but it does not change the facts about the law and what it listed on the can. That water is part of the weight listed on the label unless it states drained weight. Reading labels is quite a science in itself at times. Besides you used a can of tuna as an example and it is not about the tuna can it is about your insistence that you can eyeball weights on the basis of what is on the label. What I am saying is that the label says is a bottom weight, not the top so that there is more food there than you think (in general, not just the tuna)
You can find all kinds of but but but reasons for not believing or wanting to weigh, insisting your way is the right way. Facts are; you state you are not losing weight. We are trying to show you where you could improve and all you do is saying; no, no no no, You all are wrong and I am right. Guess that shows yes1 -
Annahbananas wrote: »Yeah I did. I still have 40 left to lose but I'm grateful my insurance covers skin removal surgery. My doctor has to document the rashes that comes from it for 3 months to get qualified.
O be honest, even if I took it slow ...100 lbs will mess my skin up
@Annahbananas I just wanna throw in: You're a badass! Congratulations on your loss so far!
As far as loose skin, every person's body is different. It's woefully unfair.
I wish everyone could have my personal experience and lose over 80 pounds and have no loose skin, but this is not the case.
I wish you the best of luck in your continued weight loss and a swift recovery from your surgery! :drinker:1
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
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions