MFP puts me on 1200 cals but not losing weight...
Replies
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/Thomaskerrya wrote: »I don't cheat - even eating out I make it fit! Been on this diet a couple of months, but have yo-to dieted for years
and have been exercising since day one (or this diet) plateau has been over a week now. I am more tired some days, thought it was the exercise but **maybe it's not enough nutrition? My weight always drops off the first few weeks then it seems to stall, and I haven't been dedicated enough to really monitor and work out what my body is telling me, so yet again the cycle is repeating itself. (Just slower than it did before I turned 40!)
**Try to up your fat macro percentage a bit (ex. eat oily fish like grilled salmon and/or put avocado on your salad) for a meal every so often. It is worth a try and works for some people for blasting a stall.
How is upping a macro suppose to help with weight loss?
I would love for him to try it tonight and report back so you can find out.
who is him? and one night doesn't make a different and you suggested it so do you not know?
I poo pooed it too until I tried it when I was on a couple plateaus during active weight loss on a LCLF diet. It works. It won't hurt to do it for couple days. I'm not saying to try something hazardous, BTW. He mentioned that he is on a low fat diet, and he wondered if it could be that he needs nutrients.
macros are irrelevant for weight loss...and each gram of fat has 9calories vs 4 for protein or carbs...however fat is good for keeping you feeling fuller longer as is protein.
The OP is a woman btw.
Changing macros doesn't help with weight loss...only being in a deficit helps.
Macros and types of foods do matter with body biochemistry, however. Digestion of macros impact hormones and metabolism. I don't refute CICO, BTW, and biochemistry and thermodynsmics do coexist.
as I said Protein and fats keep you feeling fuller longer and that can account for eating less food if you feel full...
but macros for actual weight loss are irrelevant and the fact that people lose weight doing all sort of "diets" is proof of that. IE HFLC or Southbeach or 17 day diet...but the fact is this...as long as you are in a calorie deficit regardless of how the macros fall you will lose weight...how you eat can affect how you feel, energy levels etc but not weight loss...hence the statement Calories for weight loss, macros for nutrition and health, exercise for fitness and health.
and if you are going to claim they are please produce the peer reviewed studies backing that up.
Macros aren't irrelevant but they are of relatively small relevance for most people if they meet basic requirements.
Losing LBM will impact long term weight loss, reduced pituitary or thyroid function will impact weight loss, etc... but there are a variety of diets and a variety of macro ranges that can be used safely and successfully.
Macros are most likely more important in satiety and weight variance - how that affects people mentally in terms of consistency shouldn't be discounted.
The leaner a person is, the more important macros become.
but changing macros up does not change the CICO equation...note I did say fats/proteins help keep you feeling fuller longer etc but in the primary world of weight loss (not fat loss/body comp etc) macros are not relevant for weight loss...there are secondary items not to be discounted later...
but lets be frank most who want to lose weight could care less about body comp and nutrition all they want is the scale number to go down.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/Thomaskerrya wrote: »I don't cheat - even eating out I make it fit! Been on this diet a couple of months, but have yo-to dieted for years and have been exercising since day one (or this diet) plateau has been over a week now. I am more tired some days, thought it was the exercise but **maybe it's not enough nutrition? My weight always drops off the first few weeks then it seems to stall, and I haven't been dedicated enough to really monitor and work out what my body is telling me, so yet again the cycle is repeating itself. (Just slower than it did before I turned 40!)
**Try to up your fat macro percentage a bit (ex. eat oily fish like grilled salmon and/or put avocado on your salad) for a meal every so often. It is worth a try and works for some people for blasting a stall.
How is upping a macro suppose to help with weight loss?
I would love for him to try it tonight and report back so you can find out.
who is him? and one night doesn't make a different and you suggested it so do you not know?
I poo pooed it too until I tried it when I was on a couple plateaus during active weight loss on a LCLF diet. It works. It won't hurt to do it for couple days. I'm not saying to try something hazardous, BTW. He mentioned that he is on a low fat diet, and he wondered if it could be that he needs nutrients.
macros are irrelevant for weight loss...and each gram of fat has 9calories vs 4 for protein or carbs...however fat is good for keeping you feeling fuller longer as is protein.
The OP is a woman btw.
Changing macros doesn't help with weight loss...only being in a deficit helps.
Macros and types of foods do matter with body biochemistry, however. Digestion of macros impact hormones and metabolism. I don't refute CICO, BTW, and biochemistry and thermodynsmics do coexist.
as I said Protein and fats keep you feeling fuller longer and that can account for eating less food if you feel full...
but macros for actual weight loss are irrelevant and the fact that people lose weight doing all sort of "diets" is proof of that. IE HFLC or Southbeach or 17 day diet...but the fact is this...as long as you are in a calorie deficit regardless of how the macros fall you will lose weight...how you eat can affect how you feel, energy levels etc but not weight loss...hence the statement Calories for weight loss, macros for nutrition and health, exercise for fitness and health.
and if you are going to claim they are please produce the peer reviewed studies backing that up.
Macros aren't irrelevant but they are of relatively small relevance for most people if they meet basic requirements.
Losing LBM will impact long term weight loss, reduced pituitary or thyroid function will impact weight loss, etc... but there are a variety of diets and a variety of macro ranges that can be used safely and successfully.
Macros are most likely more important in satiety and weight variance - how that affects people mentally in terms of consistency shouldn't be discounted.
The leaner a person is, the more important macros become.
Kerry said she is on a low fat diet. It can't hurt to up the fats for a bit and see what happens.
unless she was advised by her doctor...who knows why she chose low fat.0 -
Thomaskerrya wrote: »
Do you double-check the results of scans or searches against the information on the package? Scans lead to the MFP database, and as that is mostly user-created it's often incorrect (even the so-called 'verified' entries).
Are you weighing pre-packed items or trusting the weight on the label?
Are you literally weighing everything you eat? I see .25 of a pitta for example, did you weigh that and do the calculation or did you estimate?
I must admit, I trust the database, will be checking with more scrutiny from herein! The 0.25 pitta was based on a recipe I made with one whole one and shared between 5 (1/4 because they don't have 1/5!) namely stuffed mushrooms. I try to be as realistic in my logging as possible.
Doc tested my thyroid - didn't tell me what the numbers were - but said it was normal. He didn't really seem interested, said to stick to a low fat diet and the weight will come off. He didn't inspire me. Not sure what else they would test for?
I really do appreciate all the input, makes me feel less like I'm going crazy. If only there were right and wrong answers.
This dieting lark is certainly harder as you get older!!!
Weigh and log everything you can in grams, unless there is a good reason you can't, such as when you eat out. Read labels, double check calories in servings.1 -
Stalls happen. I wouldn't reduce your calories any lower because at 5'5" you could probably eat more, or at the very least eat back some of your exercise calories. I'm not sure what type of cross training you are doing but if you're doing high resistance it may be similar to weight training in that it builds muscle well but doesn't burn a lot of calories. Building muscle is a good thing, but it takes a long time and a LOT of hard work. Once its built you will burn more calories without trying. Try adding in an additional 15 minutes of cardio of some sort to your workouts (get your heart rate up to 120-150bpm for that 15 min). But most of all, keep consistent and wait it out. Take a look at all of your macros, it could simply be water weight. The easiest way to tell is increase your water intake (sounds silly, but it works) so that your body sheds excess water and it will help you if you have a high sodium diet (unless you're cooking from raw ingredients, it's likely your sodium levels are high because it's used as a preservative for processed or packaged foods).
I've had stalls last a month before, the way I got through them was to not give up. I did the same thing each week, added more exercise if I could, but kept consistent and all of a sudden it'll start dropping again. I eventually settled on 60 min workouts six days a week and have been doing that for about a year now. I occasionally take an extra rest day when needed but most of the time I am consistent 6 days a week 60 minutes a day.
Good luck, don't despair!0 -
Thomaskerrya wrote: »I don't cheat - even eating out I make it fit! Been on this diet a couple of months, but have yo-to dieted for years and have been exercising since day one (or this diet) plateau has been over a week now. I am more tired some days, thought it was the exercise but **maybe it's not enough nutrition? My weight always drops off the first few weeks then it seems to stall, and I haven't been dedicated enough to really monitor and work out what my body is telling me, so yet again the cycle is repeating itself. (Just slower than it did before I turned 40!)
**Try to up your fat macro percentage a bit (ex. eat oily fish like grilled salmon and/or put avocado on your salad) for a meal every so often. It is worth a try and works for some people for blasting a stall.
No. No offense intended, but this is silly. Figuring out the logging errors and accurate logging is what's going to work here.5 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/Thomaskerrya wrote: »I don't cheat - even eating out I make it fit! Been on this diet a couple of months, but have yo-to dieted for years and have been exercising since day one (or this diet) plateau has been over a week now. I am more tired some days, thought it was the exercise but **maybe it's not enough nutrition? My weight always drops off the first few weeks then it seems to stall, and I haven't been dedicated enough to really monitor and work out what my body is telling me, so yet again the cycle is repeating itself. (Just slower than it did before I turned 40!)
**Try to up your fat macro percentage a bit (ex. eat oily fish like grilled salmon and/or put avocado on your salad) for a meal every so often. It is worth a try and works for some people for blasting a stall.
How is upping a macro suppose to help with weight loss?
I would love for him to try it tonight and report back so you can find out.
who is him? and one night doesn't make a different and you suggested it so do you not know?
I poo pooed it too until I tried it when I was on a couple plateaus during active weight loss on a LCLF diet. It works. It won't hurt to do it for couple days. I'm not saying to try something hazardous, BTW. He mentioned that he is on a low fat diet, and he wondered if it could be that he needs nutrients.
macros are irrelevant for weight loss...and each gram of fat has 9calories vs 4 for protein or carbs...however fat is good for keeping you feeling fuller longer as is protein.
The OP is a woman btw.
Changing macros doesn't help with weight loss...only being in a deficit helps.
Macros and types of foods do matter with body biochemistry, however. Digestion of macros impact hormones and metabolism. I don't refute CICO, BTW, and biochemistry and thermodynsmics do coexist.
as I said Protein and fats keep you feeling fuller longer and that can account for eating less food if you feel full...
but macros for actual weight loss are irrelevant and the fact that people lose weight doing all sort of "diets" is proof of that. IE HFLC or Southbeach or 17 day diet...but the fact is this...as long as you are in a calorie deficit regardless of how the macros fall you will lose weight...how you eat can affect how you feel, energy levels etc but not weight loss...hence the statement Calories for weight loss, macros for nutrition and health, exercise for fitness and health.
and if you are going to claim they are please produce the peer reviewed studies backing that up.
Macros aren't irrelevant but they are of relatively small relevance for most people if they meet basic requirements.
Losing LBM will impact long term weight loss, reduced pituitary or thyroid function will impact weight loss, etc... but there are a variety of diets and a variety of macro ranges that can be used safely and successfully.
Macros are most likely more important in satiety and weight variance - how that affects people mentally in terms of consistency shouldn't be discounted.
The leaner a person is, the more important macros become.
Kerry said she is on a low fat diet. It can't hurt to up the fats for a bit and see what happens.
unless she was advised by her doctor...who knows why she chose low fat.
Obviously I'm not suggesting for her to go against doctor's orders. I didn't see post about doctor until now. She should clear it with him or her first. One 4 oz piece of salmon won't hurt though if it is approved.0 -
gebeziseva wrote: »Guys, you're deviating from the topic.gebeziseva wrote: »Guys, you're deviating from the topic.
I will return to it then.
Mainly that the OP not losing on 1200 is nonsense. My stats back in fall 2013 were 5'5", 200lbs, sedentary to lightly active. I was losing on 1800 a day. I am 121lbs now and still lose on 1200, even if I take out my runs.
OP is logging wrong somewhere or not being honest with themselves.1 -
CrabNebula wrote: »gebeziseva wrote: »Guys, you're deviating from the topic.gebeziseva wrote: »Guys, you're deviating from the topic.
I will return to it then.
Mainly that the OP not losing on 1200 is nonsense. My stats back in fall 2013 were 5'5", 200lbs, sedentary to lightly active. I was losing on 1800 a day. I am 121lbs now and still lose on 1200, even if I take out my runs.
OP is logging wrong somewhere or not being honest with themselves.
You must have missed the part where the OP said her loss has stalled for only a week. Most likely she has no logging or metabolism problems at all.1 -
gebeziseva wrote: »CrabNebula wrote: »gebeziseva wrote: »Guys, you're deviating from the topic.gebeziseva wrote: »Guys, you're deviating from the topic.
I will return to it then.
Mainly that the OP not losing on 1200 is nonsense. My stats back in fall 2013 were 5'5", 200lbs, sedentary to lightly active. I was losing on 1800 a day. I am 121lbs now and still lose on 1200, even if I take out my runs.
OP is logging wrong somewhere or not being honest with themselves.
You must have missed the part where the OP said her loss has stalled for only a week. Most likely she has no logging or metabolism problems at all.
This is true. She isn't on a plateau yet.0 -
gebeziseva wrote: »CrabNebula wrote: »gebeziseva wrote: »Guys, you're deviating from the topic.gebeziseva wrote: »Guys, you're deviating from the topic.
I will return to it then.
Mainly that the OP not losing on 1200 is nonsense. My stats back in fall 2013 were 5'5", 200lbs, sedentary to lightly active. I was losing on 1800 a day. I am 121lbs now and still lose on 1200, even if I take out my runs.
OP is logging wrong somewhere or not being honest with themselves.
You must have missed the part where the OP said her loss has stalled for only a week. Most likely she has no logging or metabolism problems at all.
I actually already noted on the first page lack of logging, poor choice of entries etc...
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/Thomaskerrya wrote: »I don't cheat - even eating out I make it fit! Been on this diet a couple of months, but have yo-to dieted for years and have been exercising since day one (or this diet) plateau has been over a week now. I am more tired some days, thought it was the exercise but **maybe it's not enough nutrition? My weight always drops off the first few weeks then it seems to stall, and I haven't been dedicated enough to really monitor and work out what my body is telling me, so yet again the cycle is repeating itself. (Just slower than it did before I turned 40!)
**Try to up your fat macro percentage a bit (ex. eat oily fish like grilled salmon and/or put avocado on your salad) for a meal every so often. It is worth a try and works for some people for blasting a stall.
How is upping a macro suppose to help with weight loss?
I would love for him to try it tonight and report back so you can find out.
who is him? and one night doesn't make a different and you suggested it so do you not know?
I poo pooed it too until I tried it when I was on a couple plateaus during active weight loss on a LCLF diet. It works. It won't hurt to do it for couple days. I'm not saying to try something hazardous, BTW. He mentioned that he is on a low fat diet, and he wondered if it could be that he needs nutrients.
macros are irrelevant for weight loss...and each gram of fat has 9calories vs 4 for protein or carbs...however fat is good for keeping you feeling fuller longer as is protein.
The OP is a woman btw.
Changing macros doesn't help with weight loss...only being in a deficit helps.
Macros and types of foods do matter with body biochemistry, however. Digestion of macros impact hormones and metabolism. I don't refute CICO, BTW, and biochemistry and thermodynsmics do coexist.
as I said Protein and fats keep you feeling fuller longer and that can account for eating less food if you feel full...
but macros for actual weight loss are irrelevant and the fact that people lose weight doing all sort of "diets" is proof of that. IE HFLC or Southbeach or 17 day diet...but the fact is this...as long as you are in a calorie deficit regardless of how the macros fall you will lose weight...how you eat can affect how you feel, energy levels etc but not weight loss...hence the statement Calories for weight loss, macros for nutrition and health, exercise for fitness and health.
and if you are going to claim they are please produce the peer reviewed studies backing that up.
Macros aren't irrelevant but they are of relatively small relevance for most people if they meet basic requirements.
Losing LBM will impact long term weight loss, reduced pituitary or thyroid function will impact weight loss, etc... but there are a variety of diets and a variety of macro ranges that can be used safely and successfully.
Macros are most likely more important in satiety and weight variance - how that affects people mentally in terms of consistency shouldn't be discounted.
The leaner a person is, the more important macros become.
but changing macros up does not change the CICO equation...note I did say fats/proteins help keep you feeling fuller longer etc but in the primary world of weight loss (not fat loss/body comp etc) macros are not relevant for weight loss...there are secondary items not to be discounted later...
but lets be frank most who want to lose weight could care less about body comp and nutrition all they want is the scale number to go down.
Long term, changing macros does exactly change calorie burned.
If you eat a low protein diet that then results in LBM loss will, in turn, drive down TDEE by 7 to 21 cals per lb lost of lbm. That's up to a free meal a month for each lb of lbm lost.
If you eat a low fat diet and drive thyroid temp regulation down (up to about a 100 cals a day) guess what happens over a month?
Macros matter, it is just that we can override that by focusing on calories, they matter a lot less than calories.
In a diet that is consistent and varied and nutrient rich - they matter even less.
For the OP - it would seem that your fat requirements are a little low (0.35 g / lb of body weight being the standard minimum recommendation) but it is difficult to tell because frankly, your logging is inconsistent and incomplete (like mine
) but I'd focus on the logging first before making too major changes in diet.
0 -
Right. Plus low fat is not "no" fat. We do need some.0
-
Skinneeweesie wrote: »Your body is probably not getting enough calories and is going into starvation mode where it holds onto everything. Since 1200 is usually just how many you need just for normal functioning. I would try drinking protein shakes after your workouts and increasing protein in your day in general. You should never go under 1200 because your body wont get enough nutrients to function. So i would try 1400 calories a day. Also it would probably help to change up your workout and keep your body guessing because your body becomes adjusted to the same workout. Strength exercises make and tone muscle which burns fat faster than regular cardio.
Starvation mode is a myth. Meal timing doesn't matter. Not sure why you think more protein will help with weight loss. Keeping the body guessing aka muscle confusion is not a thing either. Not surprised you are being flagged.
OP; Like people have said, make sure you definitely are logging accurately (it sounds like you are), and give it more time; a week is not a plateu and bodyweight fluctuates - if you measured at a low point on day 1 and measured at a high point day 2 it might seem like you haven't lost any fat even though you have. If you still aren't losing after 3-4 weeks step up the exercise, but don't go below 1200cal. Good luck.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/Thomaskerrya wrote: »I don't cheat - even eating out I make it fit! Been on this diet a couple of months, but have yo-to dieted for years and have been exercising since day one (or this diet) plateau has been over a week now. I am more tired some days, thought it was the exercise but **maybe it's not enough nutrition? My weight always drops off the first few weeks then it seems to stall, and I haven't been dedicated enough to really monitor and work out what my body is telling me, so yet again the cycle is repeating itself. (Just slower than it did before I turned 40!)
**Try to up your fat macro percentage a bit (ex. eat oily fish like grilled salmon and/or put avocado on your salad) for a meal every so often. It is worth a try and works for some people for blasting a stall.
How is upping a macro suppose to help with weight loss?
I would love for him to try it tonight and report back so you can find out.
who is him? and one night doesn't make a different and you suggested it so do you not know?
I poo pooed it too until I tried it when I was on a couple plateaus during active weight loss on a LCLF diet. It works. It won't hurt to do it for couple days. I'm not saying to try something hazardous, BTW. He mentioned that he is on a low fat diet, and he wondered if it could be that he needs nutrients.
macros are irrelevant for weight loss...and each gram of fat has 9calories vs 4 for protein or carbs...however fat is good for keeping you feeling fuller longer as is protein.
The OP is a woman btw.
Changing macros doesn't help with weight loss...only being in a deficit helps.
Macros and types of foods do matter with body biochemistry, however. Digestion of macros impact hormones and metabolism. I don't refute CICO, BTW, and biochemistry and thermodynsmics do coexist.
as I said Protein and fats keep you feeling fuller longer and that can account for eating less food if you feel full...
but macros for actual weight loss are irrelevant and the fact that people lose weight doing all sort of "diets" is proof of that. IE HFLC or Southbeach or 17 day diet...but the fact is this...as long as you are in a calorie deficit regardless of how the macros fall you will lose weight...how you eat can affect how you feel, energy levels etc but not weight loss...hence the statement Calories for weight loss, macros for nutrition and health, exercise for fitness and health.
and if you are going to claim they are please produce the peer reviewed studies backing that up.
Macros aren't irrelevant but they are of relatively small relevance for most people if they meet basic requirements.
Losing LBM will impact long term weight loss, reduced pituitary or thyroid function will impact weight loss, etc... but there are a variety of diets and a variety of macro ranges that can be used safely and successfully.
Macros are most likely more important in satiety and weight variance - how that affects people mentally in terms of consistency shouldn't be discounted.
The leaner a person is, the more important macros become.
but changing macros up does not change the CICO equation...note I did say fats/proteins help keep you feeling fuller longer etc but in the primary world of weight loss (not fat loss/body comp etc) macros are not relevant for weight loss...there are secondary items not to be discounted later...
but lets be frank most who want to lose weight could care less about body comp and nutrition all they want is the scale number to go down.
Long term, changing macros does exactly change calorie burned.
If you eat a low protein diet that then results in LBM loss will, in turn, drive down TDEE by 7 to 21 cals per lb lost of lbm. That's up to a free meal a month for each lb of lbm lost.
If you eat a low fat diet and drive thyroid temp regulation down (up to about a 100 cals a day) guess what happens over a month?
Macros matter, it is just that we can override that by focusing on calories, they matter a lot less than calories.
In a diet that is consistent and varied and nutrient rich - they matter even less.
For the OP - it would seem that your fat requirements are a little low (0.35 g / lb of body weight being the standard minimum recommendation) but it is difficult to tell because frankly, your logging is inconsistent and incomplete (like mine) but I'd focus on the logging first before making too major changes in diet.
Of course macros matter, but not as to weight loss. They matter for nutritional purposes and energy level, but you can't just up the fat and/or lower the carbs and keep the calories the same and expect weight loss. Just to clarify: we're not talking water loss, but fat.
Obviously, this OP is impatient (it's only been a week of no weight loss) and she's eating too much if the weight stall is happening for longer periods.0 -
Thomaskerrya wrote: »I don't cheat - even eating out I make it fit! Been on this diet a couple of months, but have yo-to dieted for years and have been exercising since day one (or this diet) plateau has been over a week now. I am more tired some days, thought it was the exercise but maybe it's not enough nutrition? My weight always drops off the first few weeks then it seems to stall, and I haven't been dedicated enough to really monitor and work out what my body is telling me, so yet again the cycle is repeating itself. (Just slower than it did before I turned 40!)Thomaskerrya wrote: »I weigh/scan everything I eat. Have been dieting a couple of months. Lost 11 for first few weeks (was v happy) then it just stalled. I have cut out junk food and drink lots of water.
So firstly you say in your first post you've lost nothing, then you say you've lost 11lbs in a few weeks and have only stalled for 1 week. I would say losing 11lb in a few months is good weight loss, if you've only stalled for a week, there's lots of reasons for no weight loss showing, like your period, water retention etc. Keep weighing your food and logging correctly and give it a couple more weeks. The fact that you lose dedication after a while could mean you're not logging everything correctly or weighing foods correctly.0 -
Thomaskerrya wrote: »I have 4-5 stone to lose. Am 44 and 5'5". I do a desk job but cross train 30 mins, 3-5 times a week (on a high resistance rather than bat-out-of-hell speed) and I'm not losing weight! I tried to cut down to 800 cals but felt ill after 5 days so quit and went back to 1200 cals. Still no weight loss. What do I do???
I'm only 1.5 inches taller than you and lose weight on considerably more than 1200 calories. Several things may be hindering your loss:- You're experiencing normal hormonal water retention. I "gain" at ovulation and premenstrually. I compare myself to this time last month, not this time last week.
- Logging errors are causing you to eat more than 1200 calories.
Additionally, you haven't mentioned cheat meals. Depending on how caloric they are, these can easily wipe out one's deficit.0 -
One week don't tell much. But I will add, that you mentioned yo yo dieting before and stopped when you didn't see a result. Your post sounds more mental than physical. Your brain is telling your body, you will quit again. The difference this time is You are NOT going to let this one week prevent you from continuing. It's a week. No biggy. Put the doubt out of your head. Don't allow it to tell you to quit as you aren't doing enough. Start leaving yourself a note that says " regardless of the scale I am going to eat right and exercise daily" " I can do this, I will do this, I need to do this". Don't get bummed over a week.
If we all got bummed over a week, we would all be quitters. So put that smile on, chin up, and be happy that you are exercising and eating healthier. How many days has been since you gave up junk food and soda? There's an accomplishment right there. Are you happier when you have done exercises? There ya have it.
You can do this!4 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/Thomaskerrya wrote: »I don't cheat - even eating out I make it fit! Been on this diet a couple of months, but have yo-to dieted for years and have been exercising since day one (or this diet) plateau has been over a week now. I am more tired some days, thought it was the exercise but **maybe it's not enough nutrition? My weight always drops off the first few weeks then it seems to stall, and I haven't been dedicated enough to really monitor and work out what my body is telling me, so yet again the cycle is repeating itself. (Just slower than it did before I turned 40!)
**Try to up your fat macro percentage a bit (ex. eat oily fish like grilled salmon and/or put avocado on your salad) for a meal every so often. It is worth a try and works for some people for blasting a stall.
How is upping a macro suppose to help with weight loss?
I would love for him to try it tonight and report back so you can find out.
who is him? and one night doesn't make a different and you suggested it so do you not know?
I poo pooed it too until I tried it when I was on a couple plateaus during active weight loss on a LCLF diet. It works. It won't hurt to do it for couple days. I'm not saying to try something hazardous, BTW. He mentioned that he is on a low fat diet, and he wondered if it could be that he needs nutrients.
macros are irrelevant for weight loss...and each gram of fat has 9calories vs 4 for protein or carbs...however fat is good for keeping you feeling fuller longer as is protein.
The OP is a woman btw.
Changing macros doesn't help with weight loss...only being in a deficit helps.
Macros and types of foods do matter with body biochemistry, however. Digestion of macros impact hormones and metabolism. I don't refute CICO, BTW, and biochemistry and thermodynsmics do coexist.
as I said Protein and fats keep you feeling fuller longer and that can account for eating less food if you feel full...
but macros for actual weight loss are irrelevant and the fact that people lose weight doing all sort of "diets" is proof of that. IE HFLC or Southbeach or 17 day diet...but the fact is this...as long as you are in a calorie deficit regardless of how the macros fall you will lose weight...how you eat can affect how you feel, energy levels etc but not weight loss...hence the statement Calories for weight loss, macros for nutrition and health, exercise for fitness and health.
and if you are going to claim they are please produce the peer reviewed studies backing that up.
Macros aren't irrelevant but they are of relatively small relevance for most people if they meet basic requirements.
Losing LBM will impact long term weight loss, reduced pituitary or thyroid function will impact weight loss, etc... but there are a variety of diets and a variety of macro ranges that can be used safely and successfully.
Macros are most likely more important in satiety and weight variance - how that affects people mentally in terms of consistency shouldn't be discounted.
The leaner a person is, the more important macros become.
but changing macros up does not change the CICO equation...note I did say fats/proteins help keep you feeling fuller longer etc but in the primary world of weight loss (not fat loss/body comp etc) macros are not relevant for weight loss...there are secondary items not to be discounted later...
but lets be frank most who want to lose weight could care less about body comp and nutrition all they want is the scale number to go down.
Long term, changing macros does exactly change calorie burned.
If you eat a low protein diet that then results in LBM loss will, in turn, drive down TDEE by 7 to 21 cals per lb lost of lbm. That's up to a free meal a month for each lb of lbm lost.
If you eat a low fat diet and drive thyroid temp regulation down (up to about a 100 cals a day) guess what happens over a month?
Macros matter, it is just that we can override that by focusing on calories, they matter a lot less than calories.
In a diet that is consistent and varied and nutrient rich - they matter even less.
For the OP - it would seem that your fat requirements are a little low (0.35 g / lb of body weight being the standard minimum recommendation) but it is difficult to tell because frankly, your logging is inconsistent and incomplete (like mine) but I'd focus on the logging first before making too major changes in diet.
Of course macros matter, but not as to weight loss. They matter for nutritional purposes and energy level, but you can't just up the fat and/or lower the carbs and keep the calories the same and expect weight loss. Just to clarify: we're not talking water loss, but fat.
Obviously, this OP is impatient (it's only been a week of no weight loss) and she's eating too much if the weight stall is happening for longer periods.
But that isn't what I wrote.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/Thomaskerrya wrote: »I don't cheat - even eating out I make it fit! Been on this diet a couple of months, but have yo-to dieted for years and have been exercising since day one (or this diet) plateau has been over a week now. I am more tired some days, thought it was the exercise but **maybe it's not enough nutrition? My weight always drops off the first few weeks then it seems to stall, and I haven't been dedicated enough to really monitor and work out what my body is telling me, so yet again the cycle is repeating itself. (Just slower than it did before I turned 40!)
**Try to up your fat macro percentage a bit (ex. eat oily fish like grilled salmon and/or put avocado on your salad) for a meal every so often. It is worth a try and works for some people for blasting a stall.
How is upping a macro suppose to help with weight loss?
I would love for him to try it tonight and report back so you can find out.
who is him? and one night doesn't make a different and you suggested it so do you not know?
I poo pooed it too until I tried it when I was on a couple plateaus during active weight loss on a LCLF diet. It works. It won't hurt to do it for couple days. I'm not saying to try something hazardous, BTW. He mentioned that he is on a low fat diet, and he wondered if it could be that he needs nutrients.
macros are irrelevant for weight loss...and each gram of fat has 9calories vs 4 for protein or carbs...however fat is good for keeping you feeling fuller longer as is protein.
The OP is a woman btw.
Changing macros doesn't help with weight loss...only being in a deficit helps.
Macros and types of foods do matter with body biochemistry, however. Digestion of macros impact hormones and metabolism. I don't refute CICO, BTW, and biochemistry and thermodynsmics do coexist.
as I said Protein and fats keep you feeling fuller longer and that can account for eating less food if you feel full...
but macros for actual weight loss are irrelevant and the fact that people lose weight doing all sort of "diets" is proof of that. IE HFLC or Southbeach or 17 day diet...but the fact is this...as long as you are in a calorie deficit regardless of how the macros fall you will lose weight...how you eat can affect how you feel, energy levels etc but not weight loss...hence the statement Calories for weight loss, macros for nutrition and health, exercise for fitness and health.
and if you are going to claim they are please produce the peer reviewed studies backing that up.
Macros aren't irrelevant but they are of relatively small relevance for most people if they meet basic requirements.
Losing LBM will impact long term weight loss, reduced pituitary or thyroid function will impact weight loss, etc... but there are a variety of diets and a variety of macro ranges that can be used safely and successfully.
Macros are most likely more important in satiety and weight variance - how that affects people mentally in terms of consistency shouldn't be discounted.
The leaner a person is, the more important macros become.
but changing macros up does not change the CICO equation...note I did say fats/proteins help keep you feeling fuller longer etc but in the primary world of weight loss (not fat loss/body comp etc) macros are not relevant for weight loss...there are secondary items not to be discounted later...
but lets be frank most who want to lose weight could care less about body comp and nutrition all they want is the scale number to go down.
Long term, changing macros does exactly change calorie burned.
If you eat a low protein diet that then results in LBM loss will, in turn, drive down TDEE by 7 to 21 cals per lb lost of lbm. That's up to a free meal a month for each lb of lbm lost.
If you eat a low fat diet and drive thyroid temp regulation down (up to about a 100 cals a day) guess what happens over a month?
Macros matter, it is just that we can override that by focusing on calories, they matter a lot less than calories.
In a diet that is consistent and varied and nutrient rich - they matter even less.
For the OP - it would seem that your fat requirements are a little low (0.35 g / lb of body weight being the standard minimum recommendation) but it is difficult to tell because frankly, your logging is inconsistent and incomplete (like mine) but I'd focus on the logging first before making too major changes in diet.
Of course macros matter, but not as to weight loss. They matter for nutritional purposes and energy level, but you can't just up the fat and/or lower the carbs and keep the calories the same and expect weight loss. Just to clarify: we're not talking water loss, but fat.
Obviously, this OP is impatient (it's only been a week of no weight loss) and she's eating too much if the weight stall is happening for longer periods.
But that isn't what I wrote.
but that is what this part of the discussion is about...a person suggested changing the fat macro to help weight loss...I said it won't matter....you jumped in with what you said.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/Thomaskerrya wrote: »I don't cheat - even eating out I make it fit! Been on this diet a couple of months, but have yo-to dieted for years and have been exercising since day one (or this diet) plateau has been over a week now. I am more tired some days, thought it was the exercise but **maybe it's not enough nutrition? My weight always drops off the first few weeks then it seems to stall, and I haven't been dedicated enough to really monitor and work out what my body is telling me, so yet again the cycle is repeating itself. (Just slower than it did before I turned 40!)
**Try to up your fat macro percentage a bit (ex. eat oily fish like grilled salmon and/or put avocado on your salad) for a meal every so often. It is worth a try and works for some people for blasting a stall.
How is upping a macro suppose to help with weight loss?
I would love for him to try it tonight and report back so you can find out.
who is him? and one night doesn't make a different and you suggested it so do you not know?
I poo pooed it too until I tried it when I was on a couple plateaus during active weight loss on a LCLF diet. It works. It won't hurt to do it for couple days. I'm not saying to try something hazardous, BTW. He mentioned that he is on a low fat diet, and he wondered if it could be that he needs nutrients.
macros are irrelevant for weight loss...and each gram of fat has 9calories vs 4 for protein or carbs...however fat is good for keeping you feeling fuller longer as is protein.
The OP is a woman btw.
Changing macros doesn't help with weight loss...only being in a deficit helps.
Macros and types of foods do matter with body biochemistry, however. Digestion of macros impact hormones and metabolism. I don't refute CICO, BTW, and biochemistry and thermodynsmics do coexist.
as I said Protein and fats keep you feeling fuller longer and that can account for eating less food if you feel full...
but macros for actual weight loss are irrelevant and the fact that people lose weight doing all sort of "diets" is proof of that. IE HFLC or Southbeach or 17 day diet...but the fact is this...as long as you are in a calorie deficit regardless of how the macros fall you will lose weight...how you eat can affect how you feel, energy levels etc but not weight loss...hence the statement Calories for weight loss, macros for nutrition and health, exercise for fitness and health.
and if you are going to claim they are please produce the peer reviewed studies backing that up.
Macros aren't irrelevant but they are of relatively small relevance for most people if they meet basic requirements.
Losing LBM will impact long term weight loss, reduced pituitary or thyroid function will impact weight loss, etc... but there are a variety of diets and a variety of macro ranges that can be used safely and successfully.
Macros are most likely more important in satiety and weight variance - how that affects people mentally in terms of consistency shouldn't be discounted.
The leaner a person is, the more important macros become.
Kerry said she is on a low fat diet. It can't hurt to up the fats for a bit and see what happens.
unless she was advised by her doctor...who knows why she chose low fat.
She said her doctor advised her to use a low fat diet to reduce her weight.
0 -
I agree with another comment -- can you find some time to up your activity minutes? I too work at a desk job every day. I try to walk during lunch a couple times per week. Some girls here walk up and down the stairs (4 story building). Then I try to walk the dogs at home or take a bike ride after work. I shoot for 30 - 60 minutes per day. At our age (ahem) it is sooo hard to lose. For me, it is a combo of the exercise and good nutrition in my calorie range (try to stick around 1300 per day). I've also greatly reduced my white flour and white sugar consumption. If I stick to it, i can lose about .8 - 1 pound per week. Best of luck!!1
-
I had so many responses ready for this morning for all you lovely people - then I got on the scales (I do daily) and they've suddenly dropped 1.6lb!! I ate an extra 150/200 calories yesterday - fatty calories because my daughter bought 20% mince instead of my normal 5%. Whether that made the difference or what I don't know but I am happier! I will try an extra few calories for a few days and closely monitor the data entries too, as suggested by many. See how it goes.
I didn't realise a week isn't a plateau, more of a blip, and someone coined it - yes I am impatient! But I do want this long term so am prepared to take it one day at a time and stick with it.
Actually yesterday was the first day in weeks that I was actually hungry. Maybe my metabolism has kicked back in?
My workouts are high resistance, even tho only on a cross trainer - but I've had to slow down for a couple of days because something hurts. I am getting over a bad rotator cuff injury so am somewhat limited in ability at the moment.
Btw, I am indeed a she, and I love you all, those with amazing advice, comforting support and even the slightly crazy (or not) opinions! Thank you all x2 -
That is great news! Thanks for getting back to us ThomasKerrya
2 -
Thomaskerrya wrote: »I had so many responses ready for this morning for all you lovely people - then I got on the scales (I do daily) and they've suddenly dropped 1.6lb!! I ate an extra 150/200 calories yesterday - fatty calories because my daughter bought 20% mince instead of my normal 5%. Whether that made the difference or what I don't know but I am happier! I will try an extra few calories for a few days and closely monitor the data entries too, as suggested by many. See how it goes.
I didn't realise a week isn't a plateau, more of a blip, and someone coined it - yes I am impatient! But I do want this long term so am prepared to take it one day at a time and stick with it.
Actually yesterday was the first day in weeks that I was actually hungry. Maybe my metabolism has kicked back in?
My workouts are high resistance, even tho only on a cross trainer - but I've had to slow down for a couple of days because something hurts. I am getting over a bad rotator cuff injury so am somewhat limited in ability at the moment.
Btw, I am indeed a she, and I love you all, those with amazing advice, comforting support and even the slightly crazy (or not) opinions! Thank you all x
I am really glad things worked out for you, but.....
What you are describing sounds like natural fluctuation, which is consistently at play in our weight loss efforts.
Metabolism does not kick in our out, that's just not the way it works. And, eating more does not cause weight loss. 0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/Thomaskerrya wrote: »I don't cheat - even eating out I make it fit! Been on this diet a couple of months, but have yo-to dieted for years and have been exercising since day one (or this diet) plateau has been over a week now. I am more tired some days, thought it was the exercise but **maybe it's not enough nutrition? My weight always drops off the first few weeks then it seems to stall, and I haven't been dedicated enough to really monitor and work out what my body is telling me, so yet again the cycle is repeating itself. (Just slower than it did before I turned 40!)
**Try to up your fat macro percentage a bit (ex. eat oily fish like grilled salmon and/or put avocado on your salad) for a meal every so often. It is worth a try and works for some people for blasting a stall.
How is upping a macro suppose to help with weight loss?
I would love for him to try it tonight and report back so you can find out.
who is him? and one night doesn't make a different and you suggested it so do you not know?
I poo pooed it too until I tried it when I was on a couple plateaus during active weight loss on a LCLF diet. It works. It won't hurt to do it for couple days. I'm not saying to try something hazardous, BTW. He mentioned that he is on a low fat diet, and he wondered if it could be that he needs nutrients.
macros are irrelevant for weight loss...and each gram of fat has 9calories vs 4 for protein or carbs...however fat is good for keeping you feeling fuller longer as is protein.
The OP is a woman btw.
Changing macros doesn't help with weight loss...only being in a deficit helps.
Macros and types of foods do matter with body biochemistry, however. Digestion of macros impact hormones and metabolism. I don't refute CICO, BTW, and biochemistry and thermodynsmics do coexist.
as I said Protein and fats keep you feeling fuller longer and that can account for eating less food if you feel full...
but macros for actual weight loss are irrelevant and the fact that people lose weight doing all sort of "diets" is proof of that. IE HFLC or Southbeach or 17 day diet...but the fact is this...as long as you are in a calorie deficit regardless of how the macros fall you will lose weight...how you eat can affect how you feel, energy levels etc but not weight loss...hence the statement Calories for weight loss, macros for nutrition and health, exercise for fitness and health.
and if you are going to claim they are please produce the peer reviewed studies backing that up.
Macros aren't irrelevant but they are of relatively small relevance for most people if they meet basic requirements.
Losing LBM will impact long term weight loss, reduced pituitary or thyroid function will impact weight loss, etc... but there are a variety of diets and a variety of macro ranges that can be used safely and successfully.
Macros are most likely more important in satiety and weight variance - how that affects people mentally in terms of consistency shouldn't be discounted.
The leaner a person is, the more important macros become.
but changing macros up does not change the CICO equation...note I did say fats/proteins help keep you feeling fuller longer etc but in the primary world of weight loss (not fat loss/body comp etc) macros are not relevant for weight loss...there are secondary items not to be discounted later...
but lets be frank most who want to lose weight could care less about body comp and nutrition all they want is the scale number to go down.
Long term, changing macros does exactly change calorie burned.
If you eat a low protein diet that then results in LBM loss will, in turn, drive down TDEE by 7 to 21 cals per lb lost of lbm. That's up to a free meal a month for each lb of lbm lost.
If you eat a low fat diet and drive thyroid temp regulation down (up to about a 100 cals a day) guess what happens over a month?
Macros matter, it is just that we can override that by focusing on calories, they matter a lot less than calories.
In a diet that is consistent and varied and nutrient rich - they matter even less.
For the OP - it would seem that your fat requirements are a little low (0.35 g / lb of body weight being the standard minimum recommendation) but it is difficult to tell because frankly, your logging is inconsistent and incomplete (like mine) but I'd focus on the logging first before making too major changes in diet.
Of course macros matter, but not as to weight loss. They matter for nutritional purposes and energy level, but you can't just up the fat and/or lower the carbs and keep the calories the same and expect weight loss. Just to clarify: we're not talking water loss, but fat.
Obviously, this OP is impatient (it's only been a week of no weight loss) and she's eating too much if the weight stall is happening for longer periods.
But that isn't what I wrote.
but that is what this part of the discussion is about...a person suggested changing the fat macro to help weight loss...I said it won't matter....you jumped in with what you said.
This, hence my response.
@EvgeniZyntx, are we misunderstanding?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
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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
- 96.3K 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