Nothing working, close to despair
Replies
-
Great book out, "Eat More to Weight Less," which focuses on amping up your metabolism.1
-
I just used myfitnesspal... it's free and works! I believe in counting calories and I love me some toxic foods...it adds a little spice and excitement.
And, the metabolism works 24/7. It's not a car or computer.6 -
DeeDiddyGee wrote: »Great book out, "Eat More to Weight Less," which focuses on amping up your metabolism.
I think you mean "ramping" but the only thing that I know of that actually does that are things like DNP and I highly recommend you don't even try to find it. DNP absolutely will increase your metabolism, which is really just the net of the chemical transformations in your body, and the proof of that is that it raises your temperature. Oh, and it's so effective at that, in fact, that an overdose will actually "cook" you alive from the inside. Not a pleasant way to die, which explains why it was banned for human consumption years ago.
It's not your metabolism that is the issue, it's the balance of energy you have consumed and expended during the day that is the issue unless you have been diagnosed with a metabolic disorder, which is usually thyroid related, but even then you can still lose weight even if it's a lot harder.0 -
The thing to bear in mind is that losing fat when you're already at a healthy weight isn't just unnecessary, it's also really difficult. For good reason. I really think you should consider all this advice on strength training and recomping instead of losing weight, I believe it can help with clothing fit as well as appearance.4
-
ckfromedmonton wrote: »My stress is ok, see a shrink have been seeing him for 8 years.
Check to see if it could be medications you are taking. Paroxetine (Paxil) is an antidepressant that is horrible for weight gain. Wellbutrin, on the other hand, does not inhibit weight loss. I found this out through Google (my friend). It seems that Paxil is hugely sedating and causes a person to use less energy when resting than what is normally used.0 -
You should definitely add a cheat day once a week and monitor that. My hunch is your body has adapted to your extreme diet and approach. Afraid to let weight go. Just my two cents for what its worth1
-
You could try adjusting your macros. Decrease carbs and increase fats. I'm 5' 2" as well... I do 15g carb, 113g fat and 52g protein which is 1285 calories. I work to meet the protein, go under on the carb and hit at least 80% of the fat macro. Alcohol... only a couple of glasses at the weekend and I don't do sugar. Perhaps a change will give your body a kick. Google ketogenic eating and see what you think..... I think you may need more calories, not less. Under 1200 on a daily basis with exercise is not sustainable. Your body probably thinks it's starving!
0 -
Everyone is telling you that you aren't logging correctly well I have a different perspective.. have you ever heard of metabolic adaption? most of the time if someone is on such a restricted number of calories and exercising with no loss that is the case.. The only way to fix it is to gradually increase (I am talking 30 - 50 calories a week) until your metabolism gets used to the increase of food.
I am sure your body requires more than 1100 calories a day to function, especially with the exercise. Think about it, if you are stuck on 1100 where will you go? 800? then what when your body gets used to that?! I prefer to keep myself at around 2000 so when I want to shred I can go to 1700, not 12002 -
I would also question a trainer who allows you to eat 1000 calories if you are strength training9
-
Everyone is telling you that you aren't logging correctly well I have a different perspective.. have you ever heard of metabolic adaption? most of the time if someone is on such a restricted number of calories and exercising with no loss that is the case.. The only way to fix it is to gradually increase (I am talking 30 - 50 calories a week) until your metabolism gets used to the increase of food.
I am sure your body requires more than 1100 calories a day to function, especially with the exercise. Think about it, if you are stuck on 1100 where will you go? 800? then what when your body gets used to that?! I prefer to keep myself at around 2000 so when I want to shred I can go to 1700, not 1200
Tha makes zero sense. If metabolic adaption existed the way you say it does [I believe in it, but in a different way], then how do anorexics end up with bmi's of 11 and 12?3 -
Colorscheme wrote: »Everyone is telling you that you aren't logging correctly well I have a different perspective.. have you ever heard of metabolic adaption? most of the time if someone is on such a restricted number of calories and exercising with no loss that is the case.. The only way to fix it is to gradually increase (I am talking 30 - 50 calories a week) until your metabolism gets used to the increase of food.
I am sure your body requires more than 1100 calories a day to function, especially with the exercise. Think about it, if you are stuck on 1100 where will you go? 800? then what when your body gets used to that?! I prefer to keep myself at around 2000 so when I want to shred I can go to 1700, not 1200
Tha makes zero sense. If metabolic adaption existed the way you say it does [I believe in it, but in a different way], then how do anorexics end up with bmi's of 11 and 12?
I fail to see what BMI has to do with anything sorry, BMI is outdated and not relevant. Most bodybuilders would be obese if we followed BMI. Anorexics are not on 1000 calories, they eat close to none. So how is this the same principal?
On such low calories you will decrease your leptin production, and increase cortisol production. Basically the receptors in your brain that tell you you are satisfied stop working. Leptin controls everything with regards to fat loss, thyroid, mental state.
In what way do you believe in metabolic adaption/damage then? Are you hitting your goals on a 1000 calorie diet? If you are and you are satisfied good on you, but what I am saying does make sense and if you want a more detailed explanation youtube "Layne Norton" doctor in nutritional sciences.2 -
Colorscheme wrote: »Everyone is telling you that you aren't logging correctly well I have a different perspective.. have you ever heard of metabolic adaption? most of the time if someone is on such a restricted number of calories and exercising with no loss that is the case.. The only way to fix it is to gradually increase (I am talking 30 - 50 calories a week) until your metabolism gets used to the increase of food.
I am sure your body requires more than 1100 calories a day to function, especially with the exercise. Think about it, if you are stuck on 1100 where will you go? 800? then what when your body gets used to that?! I prefer to keep myself at around 2000 so when I want to shred I can go to 1700, not 1200
Tha makes zero sense. If metabolic adaption existed the way you say it does [I believe in it, but in a different way], then how do anorexics end up with bmi's of 11 and 12?
I fail to see what BMI has to do with anything sorry, BMI is outdated and not relevant. Most bodybuilders would be obese if we followed BMI. Anorexics are not on 1000 calories, they eat close to none. So how is this the same principal?
On such low calories you will decrease your leptin production, and increase cortisol production. Basically the receptors in your brain that tell you you are satisfied stop working. Leptin controls everything with regards to fat loss, thyroid, mental state.
In what way do you believe in metabolic adaption/damage then? Are you hitting your goals on a 1000 calorie diet? If you are and you are satisfied good on you, but what I am saying does make sense and if you want a more detailed explanation youtube "Layne Norton" doctor in nutritional sciences.
Adaptive thermogenesis exists but it's not as powerful as many would assume, it's only about a 5-10% reduction in BMR so it's not going to make or break someone, it's just something you have to compensate for with added exercise or reduction in calories and it's really not a huge difference, but it can add pounds over the long run. It certainly isn't the near mythical Starvation Response, which doesn't seem to occur until you are under 4% BF for both men and women.
Dr Norton has had a long running, and rather public, debate with Lyle McDonald and others about the problems so many female competitors have after hard dieting. McDonald believes it's more an issue of high water retention due to cortisol and TBH there isn't much of a body of scientific evidence to suggest that you can have a damaged metabolism as some claim. It's far from settled science but it will be interesting to see what happens. I do believe in Dr. Norton's reverse diet protocol for the end of a diet and used that myself when I lost 45lbs over two years ago. He certainly seems to have had success with women who have had issues with weight loss after dieting too hard for competition so whatever the mechanism, stress hormones or metabolic issues, the reverse diet does seem to work for them (although he hasn't published any studies on this to my knowledge). I'm not sure how useful it is for those on longer-term, less extreme diets since I haven't seen anything data on this group that would suggest it has the same success.
However, for those struggling on low calorie limits it couldn't hurt to try and see what happens.3 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Everyone is telling you that you aren't logging correctly well I have a different perspective.. have you ever heard of metabolic adaption? most of the time if someone is on such a restricted number of calories and exercising with no loss that is the case.. The only way to fix it is to gradually increase (I am talking 30 - 50 calories a week) until your metabolism gets used to the increase of food.
I am sure your body requires more than 1100 calories a day to function, especially with the exercise. Think about it, if you are stuck on 1100 where will you go? 800? then what when your body gets used to that?! I prefer to keep myself at around 2000 so when I want to shred I can go to 1700, not 1200
Tha makes zero sense. If metabolic adaption existed the way you say it does [I believe in it, but in a different way], then how do anorexics end up with bmi's of 11 and 12?
I fail to see what BMI has to do with anything sorry, BMI is outdated and not relevant. Most bodybuilders would be obese if we followed BMI. Anorexics are not on 1000 calories, they eat close to none. So how is this the same principal?
On such low calories you will decrease your leptin production, and increase cortisol production. Basically the receptors in your brain that tell you you are satisfied stop working. Leptin controls everything with regards to fat loss, thyroid, mental state.
In what way do you believe in metabolic adaption/damage then? Are you hitting your goals on a 1000 calorie diet? If you are and you are satisfied good on you, but what I am saying does make sense and if you want a more detailed explanation youtube "Layne Norton" doctor in nutritional sciences.
Adaptive thermogenesis exists but it's not as powerful as many would assume, it's only about a 5-10% reduction in BMR so it's not going to make or break someone, it's just something you have to compensate for with added exercise or reduction in calories and it's really not a huge difference, but it can add pounds over the long run. It certainly isn't the near mythical Starvation Response, which doesn't seem to occur until you are under 4% BF for both men and women.
Dr Norton has had a long running, and rather public, debate with Lyle McDonald and others about the problems so many female competitors have after hard dieting. McDonald believes it's more an issue of high water retention due to cortisol and TBH there isn't much of a body of scientific evidence to suggest that you can have a damaged metabolism as some claim. It's far from settled science but it will be interesting to see what happens. I do believe in Dr. Norton's reverse diet protocol for the end of a diet and used that myself when I lost 45lbs over two years ago. He certainly seems to have had success with women who have had issues with weight loss after dieting too hard for competition so whatever the mechanism, stress hormones or metabolic issues, the reverse diet does seem to work for them (although he hasn't published any studies on this to my knowledge). I'm not sure how useful it is for those on longer-term, less extreme diets since I haven't seen anything data on this group that would suggest it has the same success.
However, for those struggling on low calorie limits it couldn't hurt to try and see what happens.
Yes, I am aware of the debate, I am a body builder, my partner is a coach and I have studied nutrition. I see this rebound constantly and I can vouch it's not water retention.. these girls take YEARS to get anywhere close to their comp bf%.
Regardless of what side of the debate anyone is on, you can't really argue with the science of leptin/ghrelin when dieting - both of which have massive impacts on fat loss and mental state. The "title" the science is given (metabolic damage, starvation etc etc) doesn't really matter it is the concept.
Having said all this I would love to know if everyone vouching for the 1000 calorie diets are actually succeeding long term in their goals4 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Everyone is telling you that you aren't logging correctly well I have a different perspective.. have you ever heard of metabolic adaption? most of the time if someone is on such a restricted number of calories and exercising with no loss that is the case.. The only way to fix it is to gradually increase (I am talking 30 - 50 calories a week) until your metabolism gets used to the increase of food.
I am sure your body requires more than 1100 calories a day to function, especially with the exercise. Think about it, if you are stuck on 1100 where will you go? 800? then what when your body gets used to that?! I prefer to keep myself at around 2000 so when I want to shred I can go to 1700, not 1200
Tha makes zero sense. If metabolic adaption existed the way you say it does [I believe in it, but in a different way], then how do anorexics end up with bmi's of 11 and 12?
I fail to see what BMI has to do with anything sorry, BMI is outdated and not relevant. Most bodybuilders would be obese if we followed BMI. Anorexics are not on 1000 calories, they eat close to none. So how is this the same principal?
On such low calories you will decrease your leptin production, and increase cortisol production. Basically the receptors in your brain that tell you you are satisfied stop working. Leptin controls everything with regards to fat loss, thyroid, mental state.
In what way do you believe in metabolic adaption/damage then? Are you hitting your goals on a 1000 calorie diet? If you are and you are satisfied good on you, but what I am saying does make sense and if you want a more detailed explanation youtube "Layne Norton" doctor in nutritional sciences.
Adaptive thermogenesis exists but it's not as powerful as many would assume, it's only about a 5-10% reduction in BMR so it's not going to make or break someone, it's just something you have to compensate for with added exercise or reduction in calories and it's really not a huge difference, but it can add pounds over the long run. It certainly isn't the near mythical Starvation Response, which doesn't seem to occur until you are under 4% BF for both men and women.
Dr Norton has had a long running, and rather public, debate with Lyle McDonald and others about the problems so many female competitors have after hard dieting. McDonald believes it's more an issue of high water retention due to cortisol and TBH there isn't much of a body of scientific evidence to suggest that you can have a damaged metabolism as some claim. It's far from settled science but it will be interesting to see what happens. I do believe in Dr. Norton's reverse diet protocol for the end of a diet and used that myself when I lost 45lbs over two years ago. He certainly seems to have had success with women who have had issues with weight loss after dieting too hard for competition so whatever the mechanism, stress hormones or metabolic issues, the reverse diet does seem to work for them (although he hasn't published any studies on this to my knowledge). I'm not sure how useful it is for those on longer-term, less extreme diets since I haven't seen anything data on this group that would suggest it has the same success.
However, for those struggling on low calorie limits it couldn't hurt to try and see what happens.
Yes, I am aware of the debate, I am a body builder, my partner is a coach and I have studied nutrition. I see this rebound constantly and I can vouch it's not water retention.. these girls take YEARS to get anywhere close to their comp bf%.
Regardless of what side of the debate anyone is on, you can't really argue with the science of leptin/ghrelin when dieting - both of which have massive impacts on fat loss and mental state. The "title" the science is given (metabolic damage, starvation etc etc) doesn't really matter it is the concept.
Having said all this I would love to know if everyone vouching for the 1000 calorie diets are actually succeeding long term in their goals
Actually, I did assume you understood this but I thought I would throw it out for others to see as well. I'm on the fence as I don't think metabolic damage, beyond adaptive thermogenesis has been shown, and that isn't a huge hit, but there is something going on. I don't think it can be explained simply through leptin/ghrelin and of course, we are also talking about many taking drugs to achieve those levels so that alone can be an issue. I think we both actually agree on many of the points, but I'm always interested in knowing the mechanisms as well, even if those may not lead to practical changes in how we should deal with them. A reverse diet does yield results with this group and should be considered pretty much a standard post-show protocol.
Are people succeeding on the 1000 calorie diets? Well yes, in the short term many do, especially on the "medically supervised" versions but long term it's not going to be sustainable.2 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Everyone is telling you that you aren't logging correctly well I have a different perspective.. have you ever heard of metabolic adaption? most of the time if someone is on such a restricted number of calories and exercising with no loss that is the case.. The only way to fix it is to gradually increase (I am talking 30 - 50 calories a week) until your metabolism gets used to the increase of food.
I am sure your body requires more than 1100 calories a day to function, especially with the exercise. Think about it, if you are stuck on 1100 where will you go? 800? then what when your body gets used to that?! I prefer to keep myself at around 2000 so when I want to shred I can go to 1700, not 1200
Tha makes zero sense. If metabolic adaption existed the way you say it does [I believe in it, but in a different way], then how do anorexics end up with bmi's of 11 and 12?
I fail to see what BMI has to do with anything sorry, BMI is outdated and not relevant. Most bodybuilders would be obese if we followed BMI. Anorexics are not on 1000 calories, they eat close to none. So how is this the same principal?
On such low calories you will decrease your leptin production, and increase cortisol production. Basically the receptors in your brain that tell you you are satisfied stop working. Leptin controls everything with regards to fat loss, thyroid, mental state.
In what way do you believe in metabolic adaption/damage then? Are you hitting your goals on a 1000 calorie diet? If you are and you are satisfied good on you, but what I am saying does make sense and if you want a more detailed explanation youtube "Layne Norton" doctor in nutritional sciences.
Adaptive thermogenesis exists but it's not as powerful as many would assume, it's only about a 5-10% reduction in BMR so it's not going to make or break someone, it's just something you have to compensate for with added exercise or reduction in calories and it's really not a huge difference, but it can add pounds over the long run. It certainly isn't the near mythical Starvation Response, which doesn't seem to occur until you are under 4% BF for both men and women.
Dr Norton has had a long running, and rather public, debate with Lyle McDonald and others about the problems so many female competitors have after hard dieting. McDonald believes it's more an issue of high water retention due to cortisol and TBH there isn't much of a body of scientific evidence to suggest that you can have a damaged metabolism as some claim. It's far from settled science but it will be interesting to see what happens. I do believe in Dr. Norton's reverse diet protocol for the end of a diet and used that myself when I lost 45lbs over two years ago. He certainly seems to have had success with women who have had issues with weight loss after dieting too hard for competition so whatever the mechanism, stress hormones or metabolic issues, the reverse diet does seem to work for them (although he hasn't published any studies on this to my knowledge). I'm not sure how useful it is for those on longer-term, less extreme diets since I haven't seen anything data on this group that would suggest it has the same success.
However, for those struggling on low calorie limits it couldn't hurt to try and see what happens.
Yes, I am aware of the debate, I am a body builder, my partner is a coach and I have studied nutrition. I see this rebound constantly and I can vouch it's not water retention.. these girls take YEARS to get anywhere close to their comp bf%.
Regardless of what side of the debate anyone is on, you can't really argue with the science of leptin/ghrelin when dieting - both of which have massive impacts on fat loss and mental state. The "title" the science is given (metabolic damage, starvation etc etc) doesn't really matter it is the concept.
Having said all this I would love to know if everyone vouching for the 1000 calorie diets are actually succeeding long term in their goals
Actually, I did assume you understood this but I thought I would throw it out for others to see as well. I'm on the fence as I don't think metabolic damage, beyond adaptive thermogenesis has been shown, and that isn't a huge hit, but there is something going on. I don't think it can be explained simply through leptin/ghrelin and of course, we are also talking about many taking drugs to achieve those levels so that alone can be an issue. I think we both actually agree on many of the points, but I'm always interested in knowing the mechanisms as well, even if those may not lead to practical changes in how we should deal with them. A reverse diet does yield results with this group and should be considered pretty much a standard post-show protocol.
Are people succeeding on the 1000 calorie diets? Well yes, in the short term many do, especially on the "medically supervised" versions but long term it's not going to be sustainable.
Well said, and I agree it is important to know the mechanisms of what you plan on putting your body through. At the end of the day, if someone is consuming less than they are expending calorie wise there must be other factors in terms of hormones, receptors etc otherwise this would just scientifically not make sense, and I personally see the counteraction of this is usually, almost always increasing calories.
And regarding this thread, unfortunately the poster is not seeing success and now it is a long term not a short term diet so that to me is pretty concerning, like you said above can't hurt to try!1 -
Why not do cardio for an hour a day? I'm thinking shake things up.. get on the elliptical for six days a week for an hour.. watch t.v. or listen to music. lift with your trainer for two of those days after if you want. I bet you drop the ten. It is what I do..and it works.
Also shake up your diet.. eat like you have been..add the cardio... and add a cheat meal or two during the week.0 -
I repeat, I bet it's the OP not being accurate. First she said she uses a food scale for some things, then she says she uses a food scale and measuring cups. OP, just weigh and measuring EVERYTHING for a week or two and see how it goes.8
-
The red flag for me is 'I use a scale and measuring cups'. You need to weigh everything but liquids.8
-
Has anyone tried GAPS diet? http://www.gapsdiet.com/-3
-
ckfromedmonton wrote: »I am a repeat mfp person. Never been really heavy but since the onset of perimenopause and now menopause, there is 10-15 pounds I simply can't lose. I am petite - 5' 2.5 and very small frame.
I work with a very good personal trainer 2x week doing strength training ( been working with a trainer for 13 years). I also swim 2x week, 30-40 minutes. I run 5k on Saturdays with stairs (2 sets). And Sunday's I do yin yoga ( sometimes vinyasa on Weednesdays). So I am active for a sedentary person.
I never ever eat junk ( every once in a while I give in and have a biscotti). I eat at home mostly. Clean. Protein every meal, lots of fresh veg. I drink sparingly.
For a month I have been tracking on mfp ( I weigh and measure most foods so am sure I am not underestimating). I eat 1000-1100 calories a day , which is low but I am tiny and I wasn't losing on 1200.
I went to see my naturopath who will test my hormones. I know my DHea and cortisol are low they have been for years.
I sleep well, I love my job, in a commited long distance relationship. My stress is ok, see a shrink have been seeing him for 8 years.
HELP. I could get rid of 1 tsp maple syrup at breakfast, eliminate alcohol completely. I already eat almost no sugar, virtually no wheat.
Sedentary means you do a lot of sitting and little exercise. Even you are sitting a good bit you are not in active in that you get A LOT of exercise. I think this could be part of the problem. You are what I consider to be active (if not very active). Is this what you selected in your set up for your profile? The calories are determined by the info you enter. Height, weight, activity level. If you entered your activity level as sedentary MFP will calculate your needs based on a sedentary lifestyle. You are not eating enough even for a sedentary person I am sure of that. Perhaps try increasing your intake and see if that helps.1 -
Has anyone tried GAPS diet? http://www.gapsdiet.com/
It doesn't look like a specific weight loss diet and I don't see anything to back up it's claims of curing or treating mental illnesses through diet manipulation.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I think you mean "ramping" but the only thing that I know of that actually does that are things like DNP and I highly recommend you don't even try to find it. DNP absolutely will increase your metabolism, which is really just the net of the chemical transformations in your body, and the proof of that is that it raises your temperature. Oh, and it's so effective at that, in fact, that an overdose will actually "cook" you alive from the inside. Not a pleasant way to die, which explains why it was banned for human consumption years ago.
I bet everyone in a "plateau" is googling DNP now. It works if you successfully walk the knife edge between losing tonnes of fat and dying.2 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Has anyone tried GAPS diet? http://www.gapsdiet.com/
It doesn't look like a specific weight loss diet and I don't see anything to back up it's claims of curing or treating mental illnesses through diet manipulation.
But it *does* promote juicing and coffee enemas. <eye rolly>
Edited to add: And you can buy all the recommended products right on the site. Always a bonus.4 -
trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I think you mean "ramping" but the only thing that I know of that actually does that are things like DNP and I highly recommend you don't even try to find it. DNP absolutely will increase your metabolism, which is really just the net of the chemical transformations in your body, and the proof of that is that it raises your temperature. Oh, and it's so effective at that, in fact, that an overdose will actually "cook" you alive from the inside. Not a pleasant way to die, which explains why it was banned for human consumption years ago.
I bet everyone in a "plateau" is googling DNP now. It works if you successfully walk the knife edge between losing tonnes of fat and dying.
And if it's not successful you fall off that edge.
I'll take the old fashioned way!
Also, I wonder what the long-term effects are. I'm pretty confident long-term toxicology studies where never performed.
ETA: actually, there are some longer-term side effects known and they can be pretty nasty as well.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
And if it's not successful you fall off that edge. I'll take the old fashioned way!
Also, I wonder what the long-term effects are. I'm pretty confident long-term toxicology studies where never performed.
ETA: actually, there are some longer-term side effects known and they can be pretty nasty as well.
Would just like to clarify that I have never or will never go near the stuff! The origins of it (I think I read) were from munitions workers in WW2), they were lean but all died young!0 -
Sorry for your frustration, put everything on the scale. Lose the measuring cups. It will make a difference.3
-
trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
And if it's not successful you fall off that edge. I'll take the old fashioned way!
Also, I wonder what the long-term effects are. I'm pretty confident long-term toxicology studies where never performed.
ETA: actually, there are some longer-term side effects known and they can be pretty nasty as well.
Would just like to clarify that I have never or will never go near the stuff! The origins of it (I think I read) were from munitions workers in WW2), they were lean but all died young!
My understanding is that it was originally being researched by the Russian military as a way to keep soldiers warm during winter but the biggest noted side effect was rapid weight loss. Not sure about the mortality rate but it seems that the Russians discontinued use fairly quickly. It was actually developed around WWI since it was in use as a weight loss drug in the early 1930's.2 -
I'm a shorty too (5'3") so I know how frustrating it can be that we are allowed fewer calories than most of the people around us. Even if we do a single fun thing (baseball game, theme park, Girls night) and eat one meal off track, it seems to ruin the entire week.
Other than seeing an Endocrinologist and testing for the obvious thyroid issues and PCOS, I say just keep at it. It's about persistence, not perfection.
Have you explored food allergies perhaps?1 -
lauractemple85 wrote: »I'm a shorty too (5'3") so I know how frustrating it can be that we are allowed fewer calories than most of the people around us. Even if we do a single fun thing (baseball game, theme park, Girls night) and eat one meal off track, it seems to ruin the entire week.
Other than seeing an Endocrinologist and testing for the obvious thyroid issues and PCOS, I say just keep at it. It's about persistence, not perfection.
Have you explored food allergies perhaps?
Food allergies don't hinder weight loss. I should know, I have them myself. It succcccks.0 -
You are my height and goal weight...maybe instead of focusing on losing weight, you should move your calories closer to maintenance and do recomp. You'll LOOK leaner and be stronger and healthier. that's all that matters, right?
This. Since you're at a healthy BMI I would agree. The goal should be to build muscle and improve your body composition. Your trainer should have already suggested this I'd think.2
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
- 427 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