Eating 1200 calories but no weight loss. HELP!?
Replies
-
The chicken breast I was using said a serving size was 4oz, but each piece was 5-6oz.
That was where most of my calories were.
My bread said 90cals a piece but weighed to over 120. It was pretty insane.13 -
The chicken breast I was using said a serving size was 4oz, but each piece was 5-6oz.
That was where most of my calories were.
My bread said 90cals a piece but weighed to over 120. It was pretty insane.
It's crazy, right?? No wonder so many people think counting doesn't work. Now that you're working with good info I bet you get right back on track. Good luck!6 -
I'm glad you kept an open mind about looking at it. Now that you have more accurate data, you can make the needed changes. Great job!7
-
Mind you I understand that not all calories are the same.
I eat clean
I eat 6 small meals. Every three hours.
All calories ARE the same.
Eating clean doesn't matter. Your calories, macronutrients, and micronutrients matter.
Meal timing and frequency doesn't matter.
It sounds like you're going off of broscience from magazines.
7 -
Happy to see you have the calories sorted.
You may want to try lifting some weights to help in muscle retention and reshape your body so you will feel better a your revised goal weight.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332083/which-lifting-program-is-the-best-for-you/p1
Cheers, h.2 -
This content has been removed.
-
The chicken breast I was using said a serving size was 4oz, but each piece was 5-6oz.
That was where most of my calories were.
My bread said 90cals a piece but weighed to over 120. It was pretty insane.
Super eye-opening, right???
I also applaud you for starting to weigh things. There are SO many times on this board people swear up and down they are getting a certain amount of calories per day, but refuse to try weighing their food.
When people get closer and closer to their goal weight in a healthy weight range, it gets harder and harder to lose and every calorie really does count. Your margin of error decreases significantly and it's way too easy to wipe out a week's deficit with inaccurate counting.
You've got this!!!6 -
12Sarah2015 wrote: »I'm 5"2 133lb, haven't needed to weigh anything except rice. I find I need to up my excercise to sweat. Sometimes eating more one day a week has helped me. If u over exercise and under eat sometimes u don't lose weight. Also lots of water and fibre. My diary is public too. Currently losing 1lb per week.
Please tell me that was a typo!!!
0 -
SophieSmall95 wrote: »
I used to stay around there about three years ago. I'm 21. If it's too low then I wouldn't mind staying around 110-115.TavistockToad wrote: »
I am 5' 4. I weigh my veggies and meat.TavistockToad wrote: »How tall are you?
Do you weigh everything you eat?
Isn't 105lbs under weight given your height?
You should be weighing everything. You're eating more than you think.
Everything? I need a new scale then
Your BMI is in the normal range at the moment. Your goal of 105 is a BMI of 18, which is "underweight".
You goals are your business; but weight loss is slow when you are not heavy.
bmi is not accurate and not everyone looks the same at the same weight.
All BMI is, is a sliding scale of weights at corresponding heights least and most statistically associated with illness.
There is evidence to suggest there are some people who are in the overweight (or in more extreme cases obese) scale don't belong there statistically due to high muscle mass ...though these people know who they are as it's pretty obvious and they are a minority.
But there is not much in the way of evidence to suggest it is not a good indicator of health for the underweight. In short, you should try not to be in the underweight section of the BMI scale because it does statistically increase your chance of certain illnesses. Since OP is aiming to get into the underweight section your rhetoric that it is not accurate is not relevant.
it's not just people with muscle mass. according to bmi 140 would be a healthy weight for me but at 150 i was still very overweight. people should stop acting like they're doctors0 -
@SadDolt
How are these personal characteristics you chose to bring up relevant to the point @SophieSmall95 is making, i.e. that:it's not just people with muscle mass. according to bmi 140 would be a healthy weight for me but at 150 i was still very overweight. people should stop acting like they're doctors
So at 150 you are "still very overweight".SophieSmall95 wrote: »But there is not much in the way of evidence to suggest [BMI] is not a good indicator of health for the underweight. In short, you should try not to be in the underweight section of the BMI scale because it does statistically increase your chance of certain illnesses. Since OP is aiming to get into the underweight section your rhetoric that it is not accurate is not relevant.
And 140 is, presumably, the top end of your "normal" weight.
Which makes you probably around 5ft 4", possibly 5ft 3".
Which makes your underweight range somewhere around 110 to 105lbs.
What exactly does your experience of yourself at 150lbs have to do with your experience of yourself at potentially 105lbs?
Do you know whether @SophieSmall95 is a doctor?
Are you one?
Would her being a doctor make her correct statements any more correct?
If you are one, would your incorrect objections become any less incorrect?
P.S.
Since it sounds like you may be aiming at "104lbs" as your target, which based on your objections may be in the underweight range, why don't you go run a www.smartbmicalculator.com profile for yourself. And consider what the calculator recommends to you.
You may also want to consider that statistically women with a BMI <20 have more fertility and hormonal issues than women with a BMI between 20 and 25. Yes, this includes "normal" weight women with a BMI of 18.5 to 20.
And, lastly, you may want to consider than the amount of muscle mass that you have may be just as important as your actual weight number in helping you achieve the "look" you may be after.6 -
SophieSmall95 wrote: »
I used to stay around there about three years ago. I'm 21. If it's too low then I wouldn't mind staying around 110-115.TavistockToad wrote: »
I am 5' 4. I weigh my veggies and meat.TavistockToad wrote: »How tall are you?
Do you weigh everything you eat?
Isn't 105lbs under weight given your height?
You should be weighing everything. You're eating more than you think.
Everything? I need a new scale then
Your BMI is in the normal range at the moment. Your goal of 105 is a BMI of 18, which is "underweight".
You goals are your business; but weight loss is slow when you are not heavy.
bmi is not accurate and not everyone looks the same at the same weight.
All BMI is, is a sliding scale of weights at corresponding heights least and most statistically associated with illness.
There is evidence to suggest there are some people who are in the overweight (or in more extreme cases obese) scale don't belong there statistically due to high muscle mass ...though these people know who they are as it's pretty obvious and they are a minority.
But there is not much in the way of evidence to suggest it is not a good indicator of health for the underweight. In short, you should try not to be in the underweight section of the BMI scale because it does statistically increase your chance of certain illnesses. Since OP is aiming to get into the underweight section your rhetoric that it is not accurate is not relevant.
it's not just people with muscle mass. according to bmi 140 would be a healthy weight for me but at 150 i was still very overweight. people should stop acting like they're doctors
BMI gives a range, to be used as a starting point. It doesn't say that everyone at a specific height is healthy at every weight in the range. Once you get into the healthy range, then you need to determine for yourself and with the guidance of your doctor, where in that range you personally should be aiming for. Nobody is saying to take the BMI chart as the be all & end all, just that it's a useful guide when considering your goal weight.4 -
When working out like that you shouldnt be eating 1200 calories. Your body is holding on to all of those calories. I started losing when i upped my calorie intake from 1200 to 14501
-
Please consider trying a high carb low fat vegan diet. It does wonders!1
-
brichards_ wrote: »Please consider trying a high carb low fat vegan diet. It does wonders!
I find when people are less pushy about their agenda they can endear themselves to others and inspire people to change. Best of luck changing the world.6 -
am I pushy or not? I try not to be but there's really no way i can please everyone. Just trying to help people feel as good as I do. Sorry if I'm not the best communicator.nutmegoreo wrote: »brichards_ wrote: »Please consider trying a high carb low fat vegan diet. It does wonders!
I find when people are less pushy about their agenda they can endear themselves to others and inspire people to change. Best of luck changing the world.
0 -
Bring your calories up. You're not going to lose weight at 1200 while working out four to five times a week at such a young age.
Move it up at 1400 or 1500, weigh yourself daily and take the average for two weeks. When you stopped tracking for those months, you should of found your new maintenance calories when you got back to tracking rather than putting yourself in a deep deficit. Your body adjusts, if some of your workouts are very sluggish, then you know it's the lack of food.
You don't have to eat "clean" foods all the time or eat every three hours. That broscience has been dismissed years ago. Just saying.3 -
brichards_ wrote: »
am I pushy or not? I try not to be but there's really no way i can please everyone. Just trying to help people feel as good as I do. Sorry if I'm not the best communicator.nutmegoreo wrote: »brichards_ wrote: »Please consider trying a high carb low fat vegan diet. It does wonders!
I find when people are less pushy about their agenda they can endear themselves to others and inspire people to change. Best of luck changing the world.
Every single post you have made in threads has been to tell people to become HFLC vegan. I'd call that pushy.10 -
Bring your calories up. You're not going to lose weight at 1200 while working out four to five times a week at such a young age.
Move it up at 1400 or 1500, weigh yourself daily and take the average for two weeks.
I don't understand this. I thought it was Calories In Calories Out. How can you lose more weight by eating more calories?
4 -
@SadDolt
How are these personal characteristics you chose to bring up relevant to the point @SophieSmall95 is making, i.e. that:it's not just people with muscle mass. according to bmi 140 would be a healthy weight for me but at 150 i was still very overweight. people should stop acting like they're doctors
So at 150 you are "still very overweight".SophieSmall95 wrote: »But there is not much in the way of evidence to suggest [BMI] is not a good indicator of health for the underweight. In short, you should try not to be in the underweight section of the BMI scale because it does statistically increase your chance of certain illnesses. Since OP is aiming to get into the underweight section your rhetoric that it is not accurate is not relevant.
And 140 is, presumably, the top end of your "normal" weight.
Which makes you probably around 5ft 4", possibly 5ft 3".
Which makes your underweight range somewhere around 110 to 105lbs.
What exactly does your experience of yourself at 150lbs have to do with your experience of yourself at potentially 105lbs?
Do you know whether @SophieSmall95 is a doctor?
Are you one?
Would her being a doctor make her correct statements any more correct?
If you are one, would your incorrect objections become any less incorrect?
P.S.
Since it sounds like you may be aiming at "104lbs" as your target, which based on your objections may be in the underweight range, why don't you go run a www.smartbmicalculator.com profile for yourself. And consider what the calculator recommends to you.
You may also want to consider that statistically women with a BMI <20 have more fertility and hormonal issues than women with a BMI between 20 and 25. Yes, this includes "normal" weight women with a BMI of 18.5 to 20.
And, lastly, you may want to consider than the amount of muscle mass that you have may be just as important as your actual weight number in helping you achieve the "look" you may be after.
Thank you. Great post.
Sometimes I really just don't have the patience to respond to people who are clearly reading what they want to read rather than what is actually there. Just so they can argue.
3 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Bring your calories up. You're not going to lose weight at 1200 while working out four to five times a week at such a young age.
Move it up at 1400 or 1500, weigh yourself daily and take the average for two weeks.
I don't understand this. I thought it was Calories In Calories Out. How can you lose more weight by eating more calories?
It's likely more about stamina than CICO.
If attempt to go for long walk before lunch, I'm less well coordinated and more likely to tire and go back home early. And more likely to trip, as I've found out, rather painfully.
Different story after lunch.
Exercise needs fuel to do it properly and benefit properly.1 -
Try intermittent fasting. I recently started doing it and so far it's worked for me. I had a personal trainer that told me to eat 6 meals a day, but come to find out, that was problem. I was gaining weight following my PT's advice regardless of watching calories, macros, sugars, and sodium. When you eat it releases the insulin hormone which removes sugar from the bloodstream and also promotes fat storage. Why would you want a hormone that promotes fat storage in your bloodstream throughout the day when you are trying to lose weight?1
-
Sorry if I missed this in your original post - but how long have you been stalled for? The longer I've been at this and the closer I get to my GW, I notice how much my menstrual cycle affects my weight. I really only see a difference reflected on the scale once a month. It all kind of comes off at once.
Based on what I've read in the thread, I'd say three things: 1. Eat more; but 2. Weigh and measure accurately; and 3. Be patient.
Best of luck to you!0 -
beatyfamily1 wrote: »Try intermittent fasting. I recently started doing it and so far it's worked for me. I had a personal trainer that told me to eat 6 meals a day, but come to find out, that was problem. I was gaining weight following my PT's advice regardless of watching calories, macros, sugars, and sodium. When you eat it releases the insulin hormone which removes sugar from the bloodstream and also promotes fat storage. Why would you want a hormone that promotes fat storage in your bloodstream throughout the day when you are trying to lose weight?
Intermittent fasting is "working" not because you are fasting but because you are consuming fewer calories.
While yes insulin does promote fat storage, fat storage only actually occurs if you are in a calorie surplus.
That hormone is going to be in your blood stream in varying concentrations throughout the day regardless of whether you intermittent fast or not. It is controlled by homoeostasis not just eating, so you cannot stop it from being there.
I'm sorry but what you just said makes essentially no sense from a scientific point of view.1 -
I began weighing EVERYTHING today and I was about 300 calories under the truth.
Well first things first . . . you are never over or under the truth, the truth is the truth. You might be over/under on what you said but that's not the same thing.
Also, what the heck is 'bad weight'? Do you think you'd be gaining muscle at 1200 calories/day? HIGHLY unlikely, especially for women. When you say you'd understand if you weren't so flabby that leads me to think you're expecting to gain weight because you're building muscle. I doubt it, I really do. In order to gain LBM you have to eat at a surplus not a deficit and I don't think 1200 calories is a surplus for anyone really.
As others have said - you're burning less than you think or eating more than you think. I won't tell you to eat more because 'starvation mode' because no. There's a reason you aren't losing and it is one or both of those reasons.0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »brichards_ wrote: »Please consider trying a high carb low fat vegan diet. It does wonders!
I find when people are less pushy about their agenda they can endear themselves to others and inspire people to change. Best of luck changing the world.
What's wrong with a high carb, low fat vegan diet? Hmm... lol1 -
VividVegan wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »brichards_ wrote: »Please consider trying a high carb low fat vegan diet. It does wonders!
I find when people are less pushy about their agenda they can endear themselves to others and inspire people to change. Best of luck changing the world.
What's wrong with a high carb, low fat vegan diet? Hmm... lol
Nothing. But at most, 2% of the population will succeed with it. No meat, poultry, seafood, eggs and dairy is a total impossibility.
By the way, if you know someone who has happy and healthy backyard chickens, feel free to eat one of their eggs every now and then. I guarantee you your cholesterol will not go up, you will not gain weight, and most importantly, you will not die. And they taste really, really good.2 -
acorsaut89 wrote: »I began weighing EVERYTHING today and I was about 300 calories under the truth.
Well first things first . . . you are never over or under the truth, the truth is the truth. You might be over/under on what you said but that's not the same thing.
Also, what the heck is 'bad weight'? Do you think you'd be gaining muscle at 1200 calories/day? HIGHLY unlikely, especially for women. When you say you'd understand if you weren't so flabby that leads me to think you're expecting to gain weight because you're building muscle. I doubt it, I really do. In order to gain LBM you have to eat at a surplus not a deficit and I don't think 1200 calories is a surplus for anyone really.
As others have said - you're burning less than you think or eating more than you think. I won't tell you to eat more because 'starvation mode' because no. There's a reason you aren't losing and it is one or both of those reasons.
She was saying that now that she is weighing her food, she realizes she was logging 300 calories less than what she was really eating. Which is awesome, because she is agreeing that she was eating more than she thought and now she knows what is happening and can get back on track.3 -
If you're gaining, you're either eating more than you think, or you're not burning as much as you think, I have a fitbit too, but the only thing I use it for is to see whether or not I'm being active.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Not likely in a calorie deficit.Maybe you're putting on muscle? After all, muscle weighs more than.....should I?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions