Despite diet & exercise I KEEP GAINING WEIGHT! Please help!
Replies
-
rubypinkbutterfly wrote: »I'm 46, used to be very athletic, toned, and active. I don't eat pasta, bread, wheat. I eat lean protein, veggies, and healthy fats. No added sugar, only 1/2 cup of blueberries ever other day.
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.
Per my food log and fit bit I'm at a deficit of 500-800 calories everyday. I should be losing a ton of weight, not gaining!
My thyroid is fine per an endocrinologist.
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.
35 pounds of fat happens from eating too much. You need to find a way to eat in a calorie deficit and then you will lose weight. What has worked for me, and for many others, is weighing food and logging everything you eat.
About exercise: are you logging other exercise as well as using your fit bit? I've heard fit bits can overestimate calories burned. You might not want to eat them all back.
Food type has nothing to do with weight management, it's all about how much you eat.
Finally, is your diary open (if you log intake)?1 -
Have you started some new medications lately? Have you had your heart functioning checked? Are you entering menopause?
I would head back to the doctor, if you are truly gaining 5lb/week for 6 months, there needs to be more investigations done.0 -
Im waiting to see what the diary looks like lol2
-
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.1 -
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.
Apologies. Thy this: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/think-like-a-doctor-packing-on-the-pounds-solved/?_r=00 -
diannethegeek 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.
...which means it's heavier. In the same way that bricks are heavier than feathers. "Heavier" means that the same volume has greater mass than an equal volume of the "lighter" material.5 -
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.2 -
diannethegeek 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.
...which means it's heavier. In the same way that bricks are heavier than feathers. "Heavier" means that the same volume has greater mass than an equal volume of the "lighter" material.
Again, exactly my point. They're two different ways of stating the same thing. Why are people so willing to call one out as inaccurate and not the other?3 -
Mavrick_RN wrote: »Just a reminder: muscle is NOT heavier than fat. That is a fact.
^^^^This is the only person who claimed that one was true and not the other. Those pesky semantics again.1 -
Wynterbourne 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...
She is clearly not talking volume to volume, but the belief that all weight gain is muscle, even though the OP explains how her muscle tone is covered up by the extra weight.
I see this a lot of weight loss sites- the misconception that weight gain is muscle because someone says they are eating the same but gaining weight.
So, if you have exactly 2 cubic inches of fat in comparison to 2 cubic inches of muscle, certainly the muscle will weigh more than fat. However, that is clearly not the prior conversation here, nor is it the normal conversation in a lot of weight loss circles.
By the way, muscle is difficult for women to achieve, and often makes us smaller, not bigger.
5 -
Wynterbourne 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.1 -
You're 46...Perhaps pre-menopause? I'd go see an endocrinologist to have all my hormones checked up.1
-
Wynterbourne wrote: »Wynterbourne 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.0 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »Wynterbourne 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.0 -
rubypinkbutterfly wrote: »...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.0 -
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.
2 -
diannethegeek wrote: »CiaraCatch wrote: »diannethegeek 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.
3 -
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?2 -
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.2 -
ElizabethOakes2 wrote: »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.1 -
ElizabethOakes2 wrote: »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.
I don't know, for every one of you with a legitimate medical condition, there are at least 5 people that say things like "I never weigh my food because I just know what a proper portion is, I must have a medical condition that causes me not to lose weight" or "I burn 2000 calories a day exercising according to GlitchyFitnessBand and eat them all back, why am I gaining weight?" or "I eat perfect to lose half a pound 5 days of the week and then stop logging on weekends, why am I not losing weight?"7 -
ElizabethOakes2 wrote: »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.
But that is still CICO! The problem was that your CO was an outlier. Most people that cannot lose weight do not have lyme disease or a thyroid condition. Lyme disease can be common, yes, but it can't be blamed for the majority's lack of weight loss. Your situation was a unique one that required medical attention. Nobody on this website should diagnose the medical issues of others, as it is irresponsible to do. The most people can do is refer to CICO, question if someone weighs their food, check out that person's diary, and ask about their exercise burns. If the poster seeking answers knows that everything they are doing is spot on, it's up to them to have the logic to seek medical attention rather than advice from strangers who will just refer to scientific facts since that's what works for the majority of people and every human being when you don't consider medical conditions that change the CO part of the equation.6 -
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.
0 -
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.0
-
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.2 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
ElizabethOakes2 wrote: »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.
But that is still CICO! The problem was that your CO was an outlier. Most people that cannot lose weight do not have lyme disease or a thyroid condition. Lyme disease can be common, yes, but it can't be blamed for the majority's lack of weight loss. Your situation was a unique one that required medical attention. Nobody on this website should diagnose the medical issues of others, as it is irresponsible to do. The most people can do is refer to CICO, question if someone weighs their food, check out that person's diary, and ask about their exercise burns. If the poster seeking answers knows that everything they are doing is spot on, it's up to them to have the logic to seek medical attention rather than advice from strangers who will just refer to scientific facts since that's what works for the majority of people and every human being when you don't consider medical conditions that change the CO part of the equation.
So much this... When you hear hoofbeats, look for horses not zebras! Rule out the most common factors for not losing first, all the things that are within your control. After a period of time and careful monitoring of actions and consequences, then if you aren't seeing desired results then you have solid data to take to your doctor to figure out if there is a medical reason for why you are not losing.
Everyone loses weight thorough CICO. There may be factors impacting the CO side of the equation but at the end of the day, whether you are in perfect health, have thyroid conditions, insulin resistance or Lyme disease, you still lose weight via CICO...6 -
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.
1 -
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!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