I'm still not losing weight
Options
Replies
-
Shadowmf023 wrote: »@Cryren8972 -
skin snakes and other unwanted badges of your successful experiment. Hooray!
...Tiger stripes, they're called tiger stripes...
RoaaaaAAAR!! Yes, ma'am! Clarification? I assume that's for the critters formerly known as stretch marks, not the 3-D flesh folds, si?
Yes. Stretch marks. I have loads. Lol. They're my battlescars.
0 -
Shadowmf023 wrote: »@Cryren8972 -
skin snakes and other unwanted badges of your successful experiment. Hooray!
...Tiger stripes, they're called tiger stripes...
I love this!!!!0 -
There are a lot of foods in your diary that look like generic serving size entries from MFP - actual servings rarely fall precisely in line with the serving size suggested on the package. You also have things listed by volume that are not really precisely measurable by volume. I suspect you may be eating more than you think you are - particularly since you mentioned that you often don't log because you've eaten the foods before and know what you ate. That suggests to me that your food measuring techniques may not be very precise.
No big deal. I didn't weigh things for the first 30-ish pounds because I'm historically pretty good at estimating, and I was losing at the rate I planned to lose. But when you are trying to figure out why you don't seem to be losing weight, measuring accuracy becomes suspect #1.
I've been on some sort of diet for 3 years now, and using MFP through most of that. The serving sizes are accurate. I weigh, and portion food regularly. If it says a cup of broccoli, that's because I put a cup of broccoli on my plate. I have obsessed over this, honestly.
I'm actually getting really tired of weighing, measuring, logging, with no weight drop. If I were seeing results, it would be worth the obsession. I started low carb because it was the ONE diet I hadn't tried. I've lost sizes, so I suppose I shouldn't complain, but I can't see being a nice size at 200 lbs...lol, and that's where my body is stubbornly stuck.
0 -
I get frustrated trying to explain this issue. I've tried telling the doctor, and everyone's assumption is that I am eating too much.
The last time I lost weight, I could only do it by dropping to 600-900 calories a day, but I couldn't maintain that...obviously. I KNOW that's all I ate because I can tell you what I ate every day.
I'm honestly baffled. I know my thyroid is OK, but I'm beginning to wonder if I have problems with other hormones....0 -
Cryren8972 wrote: »There are a lot of foods in your diary that look like generic serving size entries from MFP - actual servings rarely fall precisely in line with the serving size suggested on the package. You also have things listed by volume that are not really precisely measurable by volume. I suspect you may be eating more than you think you are - particularly since you mentioned that you often don't log because you've eaten the foods before and know what you ate. That suggests to me that your food measuring techniques may not be very precise.
No big deal. I didn't weigh things for the first 30-ish pounds because I'm historically pretty good at estimating, and I was losing at the rate I planned to lose. But when you are trying to figure out why you don't seem to be losing weight, measuring accuracy becomes suspect #1.
I've been on some sort of diet for 3 years now, and using MFP through most of that. The serving sizes are accurate. I weigh, and portion food regularly. If it says a cup of broccoli, that's because I put a cup of broccoli on my plate. I have obsessed over this, honestly.
I'm actually getting really tired of weighing, measuring, logging, with no weight drop. If I were seeing results, it would be worth the obsession. I started low carb because it was the ONE diet I hadn't tried. I've lost sizes, so I suppose I shouldn't complain, but I can't see being a nice size at 200 lbs...lol, and that's where my body is stubbornly stuck.
Broccoli isn't something that's measured by cups. Use ounces or grams. Cups are for liquid. Though I don't think that's where you will find any issue with calories consumed because it would be such a small amount, but that's a logging inaccuracy and it could also exist on more calorie heavy foods and WILL matter then.
Biggest issue is with the last 2 bolded statements.
"If I were seeing results"...
and
"I've lost sizes"...
Honey, you ARE seeing results. You just think the scale is more important than overall health. I understand that 200 pounds isn't going to be your final healthy weight... that you don't see 200 pound, thin women walking around. But it may not be as far off as you're thinking either. I don't think you said how tall you are...??? But even using BMI as a standard will give you a range of weight to be in.
You're so focused on the scale number going down and obsessive food preoccupation to appreciate what you've achieved. YOU'VE LOST SIZES without losing a whole lot of weight. I think that suggests that you've done very well at preserving muscle in the process.
You can continue cutting calories to force scale weight loss, most likely at the cost of lean body mass, if you want, but that would be unfortunate. Or you can trust in your food choices, eat the right things to bring yourself to the continually smaller, healthier version of you that will be impossible not to achieve if you feed your body right and stay consistent and don't throw in bad food hurdles along the way.
And let go of the idea that a lower scale weight is the ultimate goal.
GIVE YOURSELF SOME CREDIT FOR WHAT YOU HAVE ACHIEVED AND STOP DE-VALUING IT JUST BECAUSE THE SCALE SEEMS CONTRARY.
YOU ARE DOING IT RIGHT. YOU ARE GETTING SMALLER. THERE IS NO MYSTERY TO SOLVE. THATS WHY YOU CANT FIND THE ANSWER.
IN 1 year I have lost no scale weight and I didn't exercise and I even stopped logging food half way through, BUT, I've went down a full size in pants and look very different from the same weight a year ago.
This picture does show a small weight difference but I'm back up to 140 now and have been for a while. My weight runs up and down in a 4-8 pound fluctuation all the time. That's what's normal for me. But, I've gotten smaller.
If I hadn't, I would be convinced I was failing. The scale has not only zero value as a measure for me but it's actually able to suggest I'm going the opposite way.
Many people believe this only applies when you're close to goal weight but how can it be a good measurement just because someone has more to lose if it's unable to show my progress at all and actually suggest I'm going the wrong way? How can it be so different? How can anyone want to solely use and focus on that form of measure when it's so inconsistent and allow it to cause them to dissect and obsess about everything so desperately?
PLEASE, focus on the fact that you are smaller and are able to workout effectively and hopefully have noticed other benefits as well. Give yourself a pat on the back and try to stop feeling like you're failing.
YOU'RE SUCCEEDING!3 -
-
Amen.
2 -
Can you explain what you mean and give us some research? My understanding is if we deprive ourselves of enough calories for long enough, that is exactly what will happen.
0 -
I've been hearing that the idea of "starvation mode" isn't scientifically sound. I don't have any sources though. If there's anything documentation of this, I'd love to read it!
I also am taking a little time to try to find information as well.. to the Googles!0 -
The problem with the term starvation mode is that people tend to think exactly as stated above, that your body will try to save fat and even add fat somehow, due to some metabolic crash brought on by eating low calories for a various definitions of a long time.
Actual starvation mode only happens once the body has gotten down to dangerously low levels of body fat and lean mass.
Definition I grabbed from Wiki
"Starvation mode is a state in which the body is responding to prolonged periods of low energy intake levels. During short periods of energy abstinence, the human body will burn primarily free fatty acids from body fat stores, along with small amounts of muscle tissue to provide required glucose for the brain. After prolonged periods of starvation the body has depleted its body fat and begins to burn primarily lean tissue and muscle as a fuel source."
If you have adequate body fat then you by definition still have available energy and cannot be starving. Eating 1000 calories a day or even less is not what starving is. I hope none of us ever experience starvation and to call forcing a low calorie diet with abundant fat stores starvation is darn shame.3 -
RowdysLady wrote: »
Can you explain what you mean and give us some research? My understanding is if we deprive ourselves of enough calories for long enough, that is exactly what will happen.
I tend to agree with her. Many people "starve" and aren't obese. It just doesn't make any logical sense really.
I have had this conversation with calorie in/calorie out people....and I always ask "If weight loss is strictly based on calories consumed, how can you THEN say that by consuming less calories you'll stop losing?"
I'd love to see research either way, to be honest. I will have to go look into it more.0 -
If you under eat to much you will eventually lose weight. Starvation mode doesn't work like that. In the short term you may see a pause as the stress your body is under has your hormones going crazy but eventually your body will go after fat stores and muscle.
OP you're stressing to much over the scale. You have lost weight and as others have pointed out there are other things going on masking any sort of loss. Sunny has it right, just stay the course, it's hard when all you want is a lower number on the scale. But trust the process your body is doing something else right now, let it finish that. Don't change anything to force the scale to move thus creating more stress on your body.2 -
Here's the photo that's kept me going when the scale hasn't moved below 150 in a year.
I weigh less in the photo on the left than in the photo on the right
2 -
This MFP user's blog explains metabolic adaptation (adaptive thermogenesis) pretty well and simply and has references.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/EvgeniZyntx/view/not-starving-but-metabolic-adaptation-and-weight-loss-5675461 -
I think your experience is pretty typical. I dropped scale weight quickly at first and now I have seen little to no movement for a while, although as others have said, body measurements are still changing. And look at the big picture...you HAVE lost weight since June and over the time frame, it HAS been successful. Keep at it! 1
-
RowdysLady wrote: »
Can you explain what you mean and give us some research? My understanding is if we deprive ourselves of enough calories for long enough, that is exactly what will happen.
http://ketogeniclifestyle.com/starvation-mode-and-muscle-wasting-myth-on-a-low-carbohydrate-diet/
there you go.
the upshot is, that yes, as you lose weight, your baseline calories will go down too, so you have to adjust down, but this is only a 5 - 10% decrease in metabolism, which is simply not low enough for your body to go into true starvation mode.
true starvation mode, (your body will start to severely safeguard reserves in order to preserve you) does not happen until you have lost almost all of your body fat.
this is not something that happens on diets that we normally consider as lower calorie, and it certainly doesn't happen on keto.2 -
Good YouTube is Dr. Zeeshran Arain on "Why am I not losing weight on LCHF"2
-
@lodro : I do not take offense to your "bluntness", we all come to this forum to learn.
@baconslave : Thanks so much for your link to the blog post on Starvation Mode. I truly enjoyed reading it 2
