Despite diet & exercise I KEEP GAINING WEIGHT! Please help!

Options
135

Replies

  • Wynterbourne
    Wynterbourne Posts: 2,200 Member
    Options
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    CiaraCatch wrote: »
    Mavrick_RN wrote: »
    Just a reminder: muscle is NOT heavier than fat. That is a fact.

    Yes, it is. When we say one substance is heavier than another, the assumption is that we're talking about equal volumes, otherwise it's meaningless. In the same way that lead is heavier than cheese, muscle is heavier than fat.

    Huh?

    Muscle is more dense and takes up less space than fat, but a pound is a pound no matter how you weigh it.

    When ever any substance is said to weigh more than something else it is always a given that we are talking about the same cubic volume. You never see anyone arguing, "No, Lead is not heavier than feathers. A pound of lead is the same as a pound of feathers." Of course a pound is a pound, but we are talking about the same volume! You compare the same volume. YES, muscle (the same volume by default) is indeed heavier than fat. I will never understand why it is only these two items that anyone ever refuses to compare at the same cubic volume. Everything else they do.

    But....here is an OP saying she's gained 35 pounds, and another poster comes in and says:
    Also if you are exercising it could be muscle weight which is heavier than fat...

    But my comments about weight and volume was in response to this:
    Mavrick_RN wrote: »
    Just a reminder: muscle is NOT heavier than fat. That is a fact.

    I wasn't addressing the '35 pounds' comment specifically, however, If you took measurements of yourself, say one year apart, and you had the exact same measurements, but weighed say 5 pounds more, than yes, that would probably be due to muscle gain. That is not what my statement was addressing though. All I was arguing was that the statement that 'it is an absolute fact that muscle isn't heavier than fat', without regards to volume, is erroneous. It's a misconception that has gone on for far too long because people continue to ignore the basis for comparison. Which is identical volumes.
  • jennifershoo
    jennifershoo Posts: 3,198 Member
    Options
    You're 46...Perhaps pre-menopause? I'd go see an endocrinologist to have all my hormones checked up.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,943 Member
    Options
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    CiaraCatch wrote: »
    Mavrick_RN wrote: »
    Just a reminder: muscle is NOT heavier than fat. That is a fact.

    Yes, it is. When we say one substance is heavier than another, the assumption is that we're talking about equal volumes, otherwise it's meaningless. In the same way that lead is heavier than cheese, muscle is heavier than fat.

    Huh?

    Muscle is more dense and takes up less space than fat, but a pound is a pound no matter how you weigh it.

    When ever any substance is said to weigh more than something else it is always a given that we are talking about the same cubic volume. You never see anyone arguing, "No, Lead is not heavier than feathers. A pound of lead is the same as a pound of feathers." Of course a pound is a pound, but we are talking about the same volume! You compare the same volume. YES, muscle (the same volume by default) is indeed heavier than fat. I will never understand why it is only these two items that anyone ever refuses to compare at the same cubic volume. Everything else they do.

    But....here is an OP saying she's gained 35 pounds, and another poster comes in and says:
    Also if you are exercising it could be muscle weight which is heavier than fat...

    But my comments about weight and volume was in response to this:
    Mavrick_RN wrote: »
    Just a reminder: muscle is NOT heavier than fat. That is a fact.

    I wasn't addressing the '35 pounds' comment specifically, however, If you took measurements of yourself, say one year apart, and you had the exact same measurements, but weighed say 5 pounds more, than yes, that would probably be due to muscle gain. That is not what my statement was addressing though. All I was arguing was that the statement that 'it is an absolute fact that muscle isn't heavier than fat', without regards to volume, is erroneous. It's a misconception that has gone on for far too long because people continue to ignore the basis for comparison. Which is identical volumes.

    I understand, but the response of the poster you quoted said appeared to be in response to the poster who said the weight gain could be muscle.
  • Wynterbourne
    Wynterbourne Posts: 2,200 Member
    Options
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    CiaraCatch wrote: »
    Mavrick_RN wrote: »
    Just a reminder: muscle is NOT heavier than fat. That is a fact.

    Yes, it is. When we say one substance is heavier than another, the assumption is that we're talking about equal volumes, otherwise it's meaningless. In the same way that lead is heavier than cheese, muscle is heavier than fat.

    Huh?

    Muscle is more dense and takes up less space than fat, but a pound is a pound no matter how you weigh it.

    When ever any substance is said to weigh more than something else it is always a given that we are talking about the same cubic volume. You never see anyone arguing, "No, Lead is not heavier than feathers. A pound of lead is the same as a pound of feathers." Of course a pound is a pound, but we are talking about the same volume! You compare the same volume. YES, muscle (the same volume by default) is indeed heavier than fat. I will never understand why it is only these two items that anyone ever refuses to compare at the same cubic volume. Everything else they do.

    But....here is an OP saying she's gained 35 pounds, and another poster comes in and says:
    Also if you are exercising it could be muscle weight which is heavier than fat...

    But my comments about weight and volume was in response to this:
    Mavrick_RN wrote: »
    Just a reminder: muscle is NOT heavier than fat. That is a fact.

    I wasn't addressing the '35 pounds' comment specifically, however, If you took measurements of yourself, say one year apart, and you had the exact same measurements, but weighed say 5 pounds more, than yes, that would probably be due to muscle gain. That is not what my statement was addressing though. All I was arguing was that the statement that 'it is an absolute fact that muscle isn't heavier than fat', without regards to volume, is erroneous. It's a misconception that has gone on for far too long because people continue to ignore the basis for comparison. Which is identical volumes.

    I understand, but the response of the poster you quoted said appeared to be in response to the poster who said the weight gain could be muscle.

    Ahhh.... a bit of the 'quote inception' going on. lol. As you were.
  • DebSozo
    DebSozo Posts: 2,578 Member
    Options
    ...Out of nowhere (no major changes to my level of physical exercise or diet) I started gaining 5lbs a week. Within 6 months I gained 36% of my weight. My skin is having a heck of a time trying to contain this mass gain...

    Has anyone seen or experienced such a thing??!! The doctors have been useless and I continue to pack on the fat. I've lost my toned muscles.

    Will you please clarify how much "36%" of your weight is? How many weeks out of the ~24 did you gain 5 pounds? What weight did you start out with, and how much do you actually weigh now?

    I've seen a show (I think that it is called "Fit to Fat to Fit") where the trainer purposefully packs on weight quickly. The trainer has to eat enormous amounts of calorie dense foods on purpose. Then afterward he/she works out and calorie restricts to take off pounds along with the client as a form of solidarity.
  • ElizabethOakes2
    ElizabethOakes2 Posts: 1,038 Member
    Options
    Just as an adjunct here- Before my thyroid problem was properly diagnosed, I was gaining weight (about 2 pounds a week) on a strict doctor supervised 1100 calorie a day diet and a highly active lifestyle. It CAN happen. And the standard thyroid test didn't show a problem, it was the full thyroid work-up that finally revealed the thyroid problem.

    That being said, the first thing to look at is your logging. Are you weighing/measuring and are you using accurate entries in the database? If your logging is solid, don't eat back ALL of your exercise calories. Aim for half or even a quarter. Many trackers and activity lists overestimate calories burned for some people.
    If your logging is tight and you aren't overestimating your calories, get the back to the doctor and demand to be either have more tests or to be referred to you someone who give you a second opinion.
  • Wombat468
    Wombat468 Posts: 191 Member
    Options
    CiaraCatch wrote: »
    elphie754 wrote: »
    CiaraCatch wrote: »
    Mavrick_RN wrote: »
    Just a reminder: muscle is NOT heavier than fat. That is a fact.

    Yes, it is. When we say one substance is heavier than another, the assumption is that we're talking about equal volumes, otherwise it's meaningless. In the same way that lead is heavier than cheese, muscle is heavier than fat.

    No, muscle is more DENSE than fat. 1 pound of muscle still equals 1 pound of fat, but the pound of muscle will take up less space.

    No, muscle is more DENSE than fat. 1 cubic inch of muscle still equals 1 cubic inch of fat, but the cubic inch of muscle will weigh more.

    Both are true. By your reckoning we can never, ever say that any one substance is heavier than another, which limits us somewhat.

    I think you may have missed my point. Both are opposing ways of saying the same thing. Claiming one is inaccurate while lauding the other as true is a pet peeve of mine.

    No, I said that what you were saying (that muscle is denser than fat) and what I am saying (that muscle can therefore be seen as being heavier than fat) are both correct. And so you said that a cubic centimetre of muscle weighs more than a cubic centimetre of fat. Bingo! Muscle weighs more than fat. The fact that you're comparing equal volumes is a given in that kind of statement. It's different if we're talking about an object (eg a plane is heavier than a bike) because there's an assumed size there. If there's no assumed size/volume for the two materials, it's logical to assume that you're talking about equal sizes/volumes, otherwise it's completely meaningless.
  • marm1962
    marm1962 Posts: 950 Member
    Options
    tennileb wrote: »
    Calories in....calories out. Sorry, I know it's not what you want to hear. There was some Info about fitbits ( and most trackers) nit being accurate, I can't remember where I found it. I would not count any general activity as exercise calories. Weight and measure every bite, sip, taste test....its easy to underestimate calories.

    Exercise daily , if it doesnt elevate your heart rate and make you sweat, don't count it as exercise for calorie counts.

    Be brutal, write down every morsel that passes your lips.

    I second the recommendation on continued follow up from dr, hormone levels, diabetes! Pcos, sleep disorders...

    Don't give up.

    If it's all about CICO then why wouldn't ANY CO count?
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options
    Mavrick_RN wrote: »
    Just a reminder: muscle is NOT heavier than fat. That is a fact.

    So are you saying that the 150lb me, weighs the same a 350lb NFL lineman because 1lb of me weighs the same as 1 lb of him? Because muscle is more dense it does weight more than fat, as it is assumed the person saying that means in equal volumes. Since equal volume is assumed, there is no reason to state it, or make up a claim that they mean otherwise.
  • marm1962
    marm1962 Posts: 950 Member
    Options
    Just as an adjunct here- Before my thyroid problem was properly diagnosed, I was gaining weight (about 2 pounds a week) on a strict doctor supervised 1100 calorie a day diet and a highly active lifestyle. It CAN happen. And the standard thyroid test didn't show a problem, it was the full thyroid work-up that finally revealed the thyroid problem.

    That being said, the first thing to look at is your logging. Are you weighing/measuring and are you using accurate entries in the database? If your logging is solid, don't eat back ALL of your exercise calories. Aim for half or even a quarter. Many trackers and activity lists overestimate calories burned for some people.
    If your logging is tight and you aren't overestimating your calories, get the back to the doctor and demand to be either have more tests or to be referred to you someone who give you a second opinion.

    Right! I used to get sooo sick and tired of reading the CICO thing that I stopped reading the forum messages. Sometimes medical problems are hidden. I tried losing 50 lbs for the past 10+ years and ending up gaining 20 more over that same time frame...because I would give up and eat what I wanted, but everytime I put myself on a deficit (and yes all was weighed) I would not be able to lose a single pound...UNTIL recently and what a god send that doctor was, in the past 2 months I have lost 11 lbs. My problem? I had Lyme disease and it will mess with everything from head to toe in your system including your metabolism.
  • REE0712
    REE0712 Posts: 15 Member
    Options
    elphie754 wrote: »
    CiaraCatch wrote: »
    Mavrick_RN wrote: »
    Just a reminder: muscle is NOT heavier than fat. That is a fact.

    Yes, it is. When we say one substance is heavier than another, the assumption is that we're talking about equal volumes, otherwise it's meaningless. In the same way that lead is heavier than cheese, muscle is heavier than fat.

    No, muscle is more DENSE than fat. 1 pound of muscle still equals 1 pound of fat, but the pound of muscle will take up less space.

  • REE0712
    REE0712 Posts: 15 Member
    Options
    If u exercise and muscle is formed u will weigh pull the scale up to higher fig but it's not to say u gaining fat... U will know when ur building muscle or putting on flab fat weight.
  • choppie70
    choppie70 Posts: 544 Member
    edited June 2016
    Options
    Luna311000 wrote: »
    If u exercise and muscle is formed u will weigh pull the scale up to higher fig but it's not to say u gaining fat... U will know when ur building muscle or putting on flab fat weight.

    Under optimum conditions the AVERAGE woman can expect to gain about .12 to .25 lbs of muscle a week or about .5 to 1 lb of muscle a month. If the scale is going up steadily, chances are it is not muscle gain. The rest of weight gained is often: fat, water, glycogen.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,943 Member
    Options
    marm1962 wrote: »
    tennileb wrote: »
    Calories in....calories out. Sorry, I know it's not what you want to hear. There was some Info about fitbits ( and most trackers) nit being accurate, I can't remember where I found it. I would not count any general activity as exercise calories. Weight and measure every bite, sip, taste test....its easy to underestimate calories.

    Exercise daily , if it doesnt elevate your heart rate and make you sweat, don't count it as exercise for calorie counts.

    Be brutal, write down every morsel that passes your lips.

    I second the recommendation on continued follow up from dr, hormone levels, diabetes! Pcos, sleep disorders...

    Don't give up.

    If it's all about CICO then why wouldn't ANY CO count?

    Because any exercise that is not cardio is part of your daily activity level, which is included in your base calories.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,943 Member
    Options
    choppie70 wrote: »
    Luna311000 wrote: »
    If u exercise and muscle is formed u will weigh pull the scale up to higher fig but it's not to say u gaining fat... U will know when ur building muscle or putting on flab fat weight.

    Under optimum conditions the AVERAGE woman can expect to gain about .12 to .25 lbs of muscle a week or about .5 to 1 lb of muscle a month. If the scale is going up steadily, chances are it is not muscle gain. The rest of weight gained is often: fat, water, glycogen.

    Spot on.
  • teetertatertango
    teetertatertango Posts: 229 Member
    Options
    If you are really gaining 5 pounds a WEEK over an extended period of time without excessive overeating, you need to see a doctor who will take you seriously. Bring weight logs, food logs, etc. That could be a very serious medical condition. Please see another doctor or possibly a cardiologist.

  • castlerobber
    castlerobber Posts: 528 Member
    Options
    DebSozo wrote: »
    ahoy_m8 wrote: »
    How about your feet... Have they grown? And has your face changed? Your post reminded me of this article. Everyone told her she was eating more than she thought, too. She went to dr after dr before getting a diagnosis. Certainly this is the rare exception, and most people ARE eating more than they think, but very fast changes merit a closer medical look in addition to greater tracking accuracy. Best of luck!

    The link didn't work. :(

    The link was missing a colon. Try this: well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/think-like-a-doctor-packing-on-the-pounds-solved/?_r=0

    The problem mentioned in the article is acromegaly (excess growth hormone production), caused by a tumor on the pituitary gland.

    @rubypinkbutterfly, your doctors have indeed been useless. Gaining five pounds a WEEK for SIX MONTHS (and losing muscle tone) without changing your diet or exercise habits isn't a matter of needing to weigh your food and log better. Nor is this rate and amount of weight gain likely to be related to normal perimenopause. Something's physically wrong. Your endocrinologist needs to do a thorough workup, including tests for elevated cortisol (Cushing's disease), elevated IGF-1 (acromegaly) and other pituitary hormones, and out-of-kilter sex hormones.

    Doctors are very intelligent and well-educated, but they can be surprisingly blind to anything that doesn't fit their preconceived notions. They're taught in medical school that "when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras"--i.e., look at the most likely causes for a problem first. Unfortunately, some of them take that to mean "zebras are so rare they might as well not exist." So when a zebra walks into their exam room, they insist it's a striped horse, and refuse to consider any other possibility.

    Best of luck to you!