Increased excercise stalled my weighloss!? Help
Options
Replies
-
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »I say stick with it for now, you've added a lot of exercise and new exercise means your muscles are working harder and having to repair and strengthen, which means they retain a lot of water. A LOT.
Usually people say water weight due to new exercise will go after a few days to a week, BUT something about the way you say "walk jog run" makes me think you are actually on a steep learning curve with this exercise and that as your fitness increases you are probably increasing the intensity without realising it - shorter walks, longer runs.
If that is the case, your muscles will still be adapting to new levels of intensity and will still be retaining water to repair and strengthen themselves. That can be a very considerable amount of water. I've personally seen 6-7lb gains from new exercise, I've seen others on here quote as much as 10lb in exercise related water weight. And if you're heavier, there will be more water retained. So EASILY enough to mask 2 weeks' weight loss.
So I say stick with it, I think what you're doing is amazing, and I'm betting on good results in time. For now, keep logging, keep working out, and keep the faith!
Your post made me want to cry. Thank you so much for the encouragement! I feel good. I enjoy my time outside and feel so accomplished when I get out those 2.5 miles and turn back. Thank you thank you!!4 -
laurasprogress wrote: »I have lost 60 pounds since January 1st of this year. A few weeks ago I added running 3-4 times a week. 5 miles. Now don't get me wrong, I walk jog run walk jog run, but am getting better and love it. MFP has me set at 1200 calories to lose 2 pounds a week. Since I started the excercise... Nothing.. Not a pound. Help! I could cry and am feeling so discouraged when I thought I was doing a good thing for myself. I'm still heavy.. 205.. And am 5'7" so why is this happening?
increased calorie intake stalled your weight loss, not increased activity.
I. Am. Not. Eating. More. Jesus. Thanks for the encouragement though. It was sure helpful. I'm not sure if you read sarcasm. It seems to me that some people really take it upon themselves to jump right into commenting when in their minds people are lying. I understand that there are people who say they are "dieting", they eat what they claim is a healthy salad but then stand in the kitchen at midnight with a spoon in the ice cream tub. That's not me right now. I'm eating the exact same calories I was eating when I started dropping weight. I have not changed my mfp goals. The only thing I have done was start jogging because I am lighter now and can do so without having a heart attack. That is all.1 -
rileysowner wrote: »wandajnevills wrote: »wandajnevills wrote: »Wicked_Seraph wrote: »wandajnevills wrote: »Do you measure your food intake using a food scale? tracking food in a diary here or elsewhere? Exercise is awesome, but if we're eating at maintenance calories or a surplus, we're not going to lose any weight.
True about eating less calories than we expend, but weighing food doesn't give us any idea of its caloric content. Green beans weigh a lot more than whipped cream, but it's the whipped cream that's going to pack in mass calories. In fact, the fattiest foods are the lightest by weight. Oils (fat) float to the surface of water because they're light. You'd have to eat 5 pounds of green beans to get the same amount of calories as virtually zero pounds of whipped cream.
I don't mean to sound rude when I ask this... but are you familiar with how nutrition labels work?
I'll explain in case you're not sure how and why we weigh food.
Food has a certain amount of calories in a serving. You are correct in saying that some foods weigh less than others, but what you've misunderstood is WHY we weigh it. If we know that, for example, Food A has 30 calories per 100 grams, it's simple math to figure out how much we're eating. 200 grams gives us 60 calores, 300 grams gives us 90 calories, and so forth. But we don't know the gram component (the servings) unless we weigh it.
We're weighing it because mass is the most accurate measurement we can use for solid foods. It's the same idea behind using measuring cups for liquids. We don't use measuring cups for solids because it's really not very accurate (although I am still guilty of using them sometimes).
Yes actually weighing foid sounded ridiculous. I'm not familiar with labels that measure serving sizes by weight. I've never seen that. LOL. So thanks for helping it make sense. I've heard of people literally weighing everything they eat and weighing what comes out. Thank God that's not what's happening here.
There are many people on MFP who use a food scale to accurately calculate their food intake. I don't understand how that is so unbelievable to you.
I'm not sure why you still don't understand when I just explained that have never seen a food label that quantifies a serving size by weight. Personally I can't imagine being that meticulous about it, but now that it's been explained I understand why some people would do it, which is why I said "thank you" for explaining it. Now what I don't understand at this point is why you're continuing to be so condescending and pretentious.
So what do food labels where you are from use? Every label I have seen has weight as at least part of the description of the serving size since volume measures like milliliters for solids are very inaccurate as are things like pieces of a product since they are not consistent. The annoying thing for me in Canada is how things that are packed as a liquid like ice cream, do not show weight but volume as the serving size measure, but that is the only sort of instances where weight is not included.
I never noticed the weight in parentheses because it never mattered to me.0 -
Fight, fight, fight!
Amazing the things that can derail a thread. Don't let it worry you, OP.
Oh, and oil does float (fresh water density 1.000 tonnes per cubic metre, sea water 1.025, oil 0.800 to 0.900).2 -
laurasprogress wrote: »laurasprogress wrote: »I have lost 60 pounds since January 1st of this year. A few weeks ago I added running 3-4 times a week. 5 miles. Now don't get me wrong, I walk jog run walk jog run, but am getting better and love it. MFP has me set at 1200 calories to lose 2 pounds a week. Since I started the excercise... Nothing.. Not a pound. Help! I could cry and am feeling so discouraged when I thought I was doing a good thing for myself. I'm still heavy.. 205.. And am 5'7" so why is this happening?
increased calorie intake stalled your weight loss, not increased activity.
I. Am. Not. Eating. More. Jesus. Thanks for the encouragement though. It was sure helpful. I'm not sure if you read sarcasm. It seems to me that some people really take it upon themselves to jump right into commenting when in their minds people are lying. I understand that there are people who say they are "dieting", they eat what they claim is a healthy salad but then stand in the kitchen at midnight with a spoon in the ice cream tub. That's not me right now. I'm eating the exact same calories I was eating when I started dropping weight. I have not changed my mfp goals. The only thing I have done was start jogging because I am lighter now and can do so without having a heart attack. That is all.
if you are not losing weight, you are not in a calorie deficit, period, end of story. Running does not make you defy the laws of basic math and physics.4 -
OP, like others have said, it's probably water retention from a new activity. I wouldn't worry about it.
A couple other things to look at is trend. Have you been consistent and stalled for the first time? It happens. Is there any monthly fluctuation? I tended to lose better in some weeks than others, consistently (female hormonal stuff), and at first this didn't prevent a loss, but as I got closer to goal it sometimes meant I wouldn't lose in certain weeks but would still lose well for the month. Are you weighing every day or just once a week. The latter is better for some, but if you are unlucky with the day you choose fluctuations (normal) can wipe out losses. Basically, I wouldn't worry about a two week stall if you are certain you haven't been eating more due to the exercise, especially since gaining water weight when you start a new activity is normal.
If your loss has been reducing over time and then stalled, I'd still give it more time but wonder if it is due to the lost weight and a lower TDEE (although if you added exercise and not more calories that would counter that theory).
I always found that if I had an off week from exercise I'd end up losing especially well, but I know exercise (I also love running) helped much more over time and made my losses easier.
Are you eating back any exercise calories? The claim that you lose more if you eat more is false, but fueling adequately can help you stick to the goal consistently over time.0 -
You're at a plateau. I set my activity level accurately, and do not eat back exercise calories. I put in 1 calorie for my exercise so it doesn't change my goal. Exercise is for fun, for having nice muscles, and for being strong.0
-
laurasprogress wrote: »laurasprogress wrote: »I have lost 60 pounds since January 1st of this year. A few weeks ago I added running 3-4 times a week. 5 miles. Now don't get me wrong, I walk jog run walk jog run, but am getting better and love it. MFP has me set at 1200 calories to lose 2 pounds a week. Since I started the excercise... Nothing.. Not a pound. Help! I could cry and am feeling so discouraged when I thought I was doing a good thing for myself. I'm still heavy.. 205.. And am 5'7" so why is this happening?
increased calorie intake stalled your weight loss, not increased activity.
I. Am. Not. Eating. More. Jesus. Thanks for the encouragement though. It was sure helpful. I'm not sure if you read sarcasm. It seems to me that some people really take it upon themselves to jump right into commenting when in their minds people are lying. I understand that there are people who say they are "dieting", they eat what they claim is a healthy salad but then stand in the kitchen at midnight with a spoon in the ice cream tub. That's not me right now. I'm eating the exact same calories I was eating when I started dropping weight. I have not changed my mfp goals. The only thing I have done was start jogging because I am lighter now and can do so without having a heart attack. That is all.
if you are not losing weight, you are not in a calorie deficit, period, end of story. Running does not make you defy the laws of basic math and physics.
She's in a stall after introducing new exercise, and she's a woman so TOM could be impacting her. Water weight is highly probable. If this goes on for a month or more, we can evaluate if she's not in a deficit, but it's been two weeks.7 -
Water retention after exercise does happen but it's not so pronounced that it would last for weeks at a time. It only lasts for 24-48 hours. It is more pronounced with strength training routines than with cardio alone. When muscle fibers experience microtears the body retains fluid and surrounds the muscle with fluid to protect it and to aid in repair.
There are other factors that are at play too. Women are more prone to water retention due to hormone fluctuations throughout their monthly cycle, especially after exercise. Taking hormones like birth control can also cause an increase in water retention.
Drinking more water and staying hydrated will help with water bloat. Seems counterintuitive but the more you drink the more you expend. Limiting sodium intake will also aid in reducing water retention.3 -
wandajnevills wrote: »Wicked_Seraph wrote: »wandajnevills wrote: »Do you measure your food intake using a food scale? tracking food in a diary here or elsewhere? Exercise is awesome, but if we're eating at maintenance calories or a surplus, we're not going to lose any weight.
True about eating less calories than we expend, but weighing food doesn't give us any idea of its caloric content. Green beans weigh a lot more than whipped cream, but it's the whipped cream that's going to pack in mass calories. In fact, the fattiest foods are the lightest by weight. Oils (fat) float to the surface of water because they're light. You'd have to eat 5 pounds of green beans to get the same amount of calories as virtually zero pounds of whipped cream.
I don't mean to sound rude when I ask this... but are you familiar with how nutrition labels work?
I'll explain in case you're not sure how and why we weigh food.
Food has a certain amount of calories in a serving. You are correct in saying that some foods weigh less than others, but what you've misunderstood is WHY we weigh it. If we know that, for example, Food A has 30 calories per 100 grams, it's simple math to figure out how much we're eating. 200 grams gives us 60 calores, 300 grams gives us 90 calories, and so forth. But we don't know the gram component (the servings) unless we weigh it.
We're weighing it because mass is the most accurate measurement we can use for solid foods. It's the same idea behind using measuring cups for liquids. We don't use measuring cups for solids because it's really not very accurate (although I am still guilty of using them sometimes).
Yes actually weighing foid sounded ridiculous. I'm not familiar with labels that measure serving sizes by weight. I've never seen that. LOL. So thanks for helping it make sense. I've heard of people literally weighing everything they eat and weighing what comes out. Thank God that's not what's happening here.
Totally understandable - I honestly don't think I noticed the mass portion of nutrition labels until I started weighing things. A lot of serving sizes here in the US are in cups, portions like "slice", and so forth. These are helpful, but to get an accurate look you really want to weight solids as often as possible.
Just as an example: Special K has ~110 calories per cup (can't recall the mass of a serving). I poured myself a bowl that held three cups, so this should have been ~330 calories, right? I weighed it, and based on mass I was actually eating closer to 500-600 calories! Cups are excellent for measuring liquids - a cup of water is a cup of water. But solids are iffy. A HEAPING cup of blueberries is not quite the same as a cup of blueberries dipping below the edge, you know?2 -
You got a lot of good answers, but I'll stick my oar in too, just because.
I just went through this myself. I was losing 1-1.5 pounds a week like clockwork until I added in exercise.
Queue three week stall. Muscles hold on to water after exercise as a protective blister of sorts. It's part of what makes you so sore a day or two after a hard workout. It does that because you damage muscle fiber in the process (it's a good thing, I swear!)
After three weeks I peed approx 437 times in 16 hours and then lost something like 4 pounds in 3 days.
You just have to patient and realize that human bodies don't work like clockwork, unless it's one of Salvador Dali's clocks.6 -
drrkhanna007 wrote: »In weight loss, Diet plays 80% role and exercise plays 20% role.
Measure your intake strictly,
Say no to high glycemic index foods,
Also do strength training and cardio on alternate days.
The low glycemic index foods idea to help lose weight has been debunked.
Currently, research doesn't support low GI eating as a magic bullet for weight loss. It comes back to eating less, being more active, and consuming a healthy diet containing plenty of whole grains and other fiber containing foods (e.g., fruits and vegetables).
“The unexpected findings of the study suggest that the concept of glycemic index is less important than previously thought.”
Despite its popularity, eating more carbohydrate-rich foods with a low GI and fewer carbohydrate-rich foods with a high GI — without making any other change to your diet — actually has very little effect on weight loss.0 -
drrkhanna007 wrote: »In weight loss, Diet plays 80% role and exercise plays 20% role.
Measure your intake strictly,
Say no to high glycemic index foods,
Also do strength training and cardio on alternate days.
The low glycemic index foods idea to help lose weight has been debunked.
Currently, research doesn't support low GI eating as a magic bullet for weight loss. It comes back to eating less, being more active, and consuming a healthy diet containing plenty of whole grains and other fiber containing foods (e.g., fruits and vegetables).
“The unexpected findings of the study suggest that the concept of glycemic index is less important than previously thought.”
Despite its popularity, eating more carbohydrate-rich foods with a low GI and fewer carbohydrate-rich foods with a high GI — without making any other change to your diet — actually has very little effect on weight loss.
You don't need whole grains. There is no such thing as a grain deficiency. And you want to avoid them entirely if you are pre-Type 2 diabetic, or are trying to reverse or place in remission Type 2 diabetes.1 -
Water retention after exercise does happen but it's not so pronounced that it would last for weeks at a time. It only lasts for 24-48 hours. It is more pronounced with strength training routines than with cardio alone. When muscle fibers experience microtears the body retains fluid and surrounds the muscle with fluid to protect it and to aid in repair.
There are other factors that are at play too. Women are more prone to water retention due to hormone fluctuations throughout their monthly cycle, especially after exercise. Taking hormones like birth control can also cause an increase in water retention.
Drinking more water and staying hydrated will help with water bloat. Seems counterintuitive but the more you drink the more you expend. Limiting sodium intake will also aid in reducing water retention.
Not so. I am currently retaining water from exercise nearly two weeks after taking a break. I've been at this a year with enough data to know this is the case. Everybody is different. My body likes to take its own sweet time letting go of retained water. Partially because I'm really slack with hydrating enough. So sweeping generalisations help no-one. It was also noted that she's doing a C25K type schedule, so the effort increases each week, leading to increased activity each week for a period, this would potentially cause a little new retention each week too. It should even itself out but it could easily account for a couple of weeks or so of masked losses.3 -
mskessler89 wrote: »laurasprogress wrote: »laurasprogress wrote: »I have lost 60 pounds since January 1st of this year. A few weeks ago I added running 3-4 times a week. 5 miles. Now don't get me wrong, I walk jog run walk jog run, but am getting better and love it. MFP has me set at 1200 calories to lose 2 pounds a week. Since I started the excercise... Nothing.. Not a pound. Help! I could cry and am feeling so discouraged when I thought I was doing a good thing for myself. I'm still heavy.. 205.. And am 5'7" so why is this happening?
increased calorie intake stalled your weight loss, not increased activity.
I. Am. Not. Eating. More. Jesus. Thanks for the encouragement though. It was sure helpful. I'm not sure if you read sarcasm. It seems to me that some people really take it upon themselves to jump right into commenting when in their minds people are lying. I understand that there are people who say they are "dieting", they eat what they claim is a healthy salad but then stand in the kitchen at midnight with a spoon in the ice cream tub. That's not me right now. I'm eating the exact same calories I was eating when I started dropping weight. I have not changed my mfp goals. The only thing I have done was start jogging because I am lighter now and can do so without having a heart attack. That is all.
if you are not losing weight, you are not in a calorie deficit, period, end of story. Running does not make you defy the laws of basic math and physics.
She's in a stall after introducing new exercise, and she's a woman so TOM could be impacting her. Water weight is highly probable. If this goes on for a month or more, we can evaluate if she's not in a deficit, but it's been two weeks.
my point is that the only thing that stalls weight loss is excess calories...yes, water weight is a temporary thing but if OP is truly not losing then she is not in a deficit, period.3 -
wandajnevills wrote: »Correction, I never *noticed* it was on the labels. I literally never noticed, or I completely disregarded, that the weight was listed in parentheses until it was pointed out in this thread. I'd be miserable having to measure my food so closely. I just round up with calories in and round down with calories burned.
I am much happier being confident that my CI is more accurate -- it only takes a second. I mean, people have to choose the method that is best for them. Increased accuracy is much better for many of us.3 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »drrkhanna007 wrote: »In weight loss, Diet plays 80% role and exercise plays 20% role.
Measure your intake strictly,
Say no to high glycemic index foods,
Also do strength training and cardio on alternate days.
The low glycemic index foods idea to help lose weight has been debunked.
Currently, research doesn't support low GI eating as a magic bullet for weight loss. It comes back to eating less, being more active, and consuming a healthy diet containing plenty of whole grains and other fiber containing foods (e.g., fruits and vegetables).
“The unexpected findings of the study suggest that the concept of glycemic index is less important than previously thought.”
Despite its popularity, eating more carbohydrate-rich foods with a low GI and fewer carbohydrate-rich foods with a high GI — without making any other change to your diet — actually has very little effect on weight loss.
You don't need whole grains. There is no such thing as a grain deficiency. And you want to avoid them entirely if you are pre-Type 2 diabetic, or are trying to reverse or place in remission Type 2 diabetes.
I was just quoting an article that I read. Also, I know quite a few people who are type 2 , or have pre diabetes who still have whole grains - they do not avoid them. Also, it does not imply that there is such a thing as a "grain deficiency".3 -
ulcaster555 wrote: »looks like your building muscle mass, i'm going through the same thing
Unlikely. She said she's mostly jogging and walking. Unless you're doing sprints you're not going to be building any significant amounts muscle. In fact, too much cardio is catabolic. If she were also doing strength training I'd agree it could be increased muscle.ulcaster555 wrote: »looks like your building muscle mass, i'm going through the same thing
Definitely listen to them, slow or medium paced runs will put you into starvation. The human body is smarter than you. If your body suspects you're doing long runs its going to slow ur metabolism but if it suspects you're going for short fast burst such as running, it'll get lean and shed the fat. It's been proven over and over again. Look at basketball players, they do sprint intervals, also 100 meter runners too but look at marathon runners. They're a whole different build. Good luck.1 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Water retention after exercise does happen but it's not so pronounced that it would last for weeks at a time. It only lasts for 24-48 hours. It is more pronounced with strength training routines than with cardio alone. When muscle fibers experience microtears the body retains fluid and surrounds the muscle with fluid to protect it and to aid in repair.
There are other factors that are at play too. Women are more prone to water retention due to hormone fluctuations throughout their monthly cycle, especially after exercise. Taking hormones like birth control can also cause an increase in water retention.
Drinking more water and staying hydrated will help with water bloat. Seems counterintuitive but the more you drink the more you expend. Limiting sodium intake will also aid in reducing water retention.
Not so. I am currently retaining water from exercise nearly two weeks after taking a break. I've been at this a year with enough data to know this is the case. Everybody is different. My body likes to take its own sweet time letting go of retained water. Partially because I'm really slack with hydrating enough. So sweeping generalisations help no-one. It was also noted that she's doing a C25K type schedule, so the effort increases each week, leading to increased activity each week for a period, this would potentially cause a little new retention each week too. It should even itself out but it could easily account for a couple of weeks or so of masked losses.
You must defy basic human physiology then. If you haven't exercised in two weeks there is no way you are retaining water due to that particular activity. Muscle trauma induced water retention doesn't typically last more than a few days, which suggests other factors are present. Such as hormones, high sodium, insufficient hydration etc...
Furthermore, the effects of water retention is most pronounced during the initial onset of a new training routine. As the body becomes more accustomed to training, the effects of that training is reduced. Which is why people experience plateaus. That's not to say there isn't some fluid retention post aerobic activity, but seeing 0 change in weight loss when daily intake is kept at a constant deficit suggests that something is amiss. The energy equation doesn't match the results.
There are a multitude of factors that cause water retention. Chalking it up to running alone is a lazy explanation.0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »wandajnevills wrote: »An extremely important thing to remember is that muscle is very dense and weighs a lot more than fat. That means 5 pounds of muscle is a fraction of the size of 5 pounds of fat. 5 measly pounds of fat is literally bigger than a football. Fat is fluffy. You could be losing fat and gaining muscle and maintaining the same weight. You could even be gaining weight and getting thinner if you're building muscle. You should go by your size, measurements, how your clothes fit and how you look in the mirror more than the scale if you're exercising a lot.
Side note: Another great thing about muscle is that the more of it you have, the more calories you burn, even at rest.
A woman doing everything right (progressive lifting program and a surplus) is lucky to gain 1-2 pounds a month. The OP doesn't even fit into that category. Muscle gain is not happening fast enough to offset fat loss.
Yeah, this is the key point. Maybe, for an untrained beginner doing a progressive resistance program you could recomp somewhat and gain a little muscle, along with losing weight (more likely in a younger guy than a woman). You are never going to gain enough muscle mass to stall weight loss at 1300 calories, especially doing just cardio.
It's still nothing to worry about, of course, but I never get how people think you can put on lots of muscle mass and gain overall mass at a sharp deficit.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 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
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions