I really need your help. Please.
Options
Replies
-
guilloskull wrote: »You've been very helpful. I'm 5'9", so 160 sounds like a good number to me. I will start working on my deficit, but I'm not sure how much I'd have to lower my numbers to.
160 would be a 23.6 BMI on the old calculators, so that's in the normal range and should be fine. My personal goal was to be in the mid-range of a normal BMI, then build muscle until I hit about 80% of the normal BMI scale for my height. That way I stay normal but will have enough muscle to not look skinny/fat.
As far as how much to lower your calories, I wouldn't go below 1600, and would probably stick around 1750 if you're exercising say 30 minutes a day 5 days a week at a moderate pace. Check out IIFYM.com and use their calculator. Be honest with the settings and see what it puts you at. Try not to go above -20% deficit, it'll also help you set your macros for fat loss. I've been using it for over a year and simply plug its macros into MFP's premium version. I've been very happy with the results. I'm not saying MFP's calculations are bad, I just don't think MFP gives you enough protein to build/retain muscle. That's my opinion only.
As far as the rest, do spend $20-$25 on a decent food scale on Amazon and weigh your food, be diligent about logging everything, and don't use cheat days/meals if you can keep from it. Simply eat whatever you want within your assigned macros and calorie goals and exercise as much as you can stand. I allowed MFP to add exercise calories back in for me, so I set iifym's calculator at 0 days a week exercising for 0 minutes. That way if I didn't exercise a specific day I knew exactly how much I could eat. If it was a day I exercised I got extra calories and could eat more. It can/will suck on rest days because you can't eat as much but it worked for me well like that. Others enter their exercise times/days into calculators like iifym's and let it set you a daily calorie and macro goal so you don't have days that you eat less, but you also won't have days that you eat more because if you do it that way you have to turn off MFP adding in exercise calories.
The next thing is to track your exercise calories accurately. You can do that manually or with a device. I use a HR strap (Polar H7) paired with my iPhone, then I use an app called Endomondo that syncs with MFP. For me it's been very accurate over the last 1.5 years. I can easily eat back 80% or more of my exercise calories that Endomondo reports and still stay in my goals. You can also use Fitbit/Garmin/whatever tracker you want or just try to do your best estimation and eat back less of those calories to err on the side of caution.
1 -
This is actually my 185. Just took the picture, and makes me frustrated just by looking at it. I think I can even go lower than 160. I'm only 5'9".
0 -
You need to change up your workout. You should be losing weight like crazy I'm 5'10 and 193lbs I eat 2000kcal and have been losing weight nonstop.1
-
red99ryder wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »185 - 25 = 160 I don't know how tall you are but that is pretty low. I am almost 6' 2" and when I got to 173 people started asking if I was well.
160 is in the "ideal" range for most men. All bodies are different, but if you have hit that wall in the ideal weigh range, and have a good body fat %, your physique will not let you lose more weight without losing muscle. Whether you have actually reached that point, I don't know.
Of course, it is worth noting that the formula that MFP uses for energy expenditure and calorie intake is not suitable for everyone. I believe one formula is more accurate than another for athletes and for overweight/average people. Maybe your body has changed how it expends or saves energy, and a new TDEE formula is in order. You could look into that and set your own goals based on your physique.
Yeah just to put a counterpoint to that I am very small framed (wrists are like 6'' diameter) and probably lower muscle than average. As a result of that I'd say I would be very lean but still healthy all the way down to something like 145 pounds at 6' tall. People baulk at that but I've been 154 before and although I was starting to get lean I wasn't "see my abs" lean.
I actually have a picture of me at 160 pounds at 6' tall. Can tell I'm at a healthy weight, not even all that lean yet still have lovehandles and no sign of abs at all:
I'd say 155 is probably my ideal healthy weight, if I go below that I'm probably pushing for extra leanness but would still be healthy. How much muscle you have relative to bodyfat is much more important than your weight which can be pretty heavily skewed by things like frame size.
Also have a picture of me at 188 pounds (close to OPs current weight) and as you can see 188 pounds for me was actually quite overweight, I was something like 28% bodyfat.
So OP if your 185 looks more like my 160 then getting down to 160 might be a stretch for you. If your 185 looks more like my 188 then it'll be a totally reasonable goal.
It's amazing what 28 pounds did .. good job and that's for posting that
To OP ..you have did a great job .. and just by staying focused and caring a bought your body tells me you will get where you want to get
Good luck
0 -
guilloskull wrote: »This is actually my 185. Just took the picture, and makes me frustrated just by looking at it. I think I can even go lower than 160. I'm only 5'9".
What is your goal physique? Do you want to be lean and muscled, or are you going for the ultra-skinny waif/"twink" look? What is your current workout routine (if any)?
From the photo you posted, it's hard to imagine you losing 25-30 more pounds.1 -
Honestly looks like you just need to tone up more than anything, which may not show a huge decrease on the scale but will appearance-wise. Don't worry too much about the scale, in my opinion.2
-
What is your goal physique? Do you want to be lean and muscled, or are you going for the ultra-skinny waif/"twink" look? What is your current workout routine (if any)?guilloskull wrote: »This is actually my 185. Just took the picture, and makes me frustrated just by looking at it. I think I can even go lower than 160. I'm only 5'9".
From the photo you posted, it's hard to imagine you losing 25-30 more pounds.
Seconded. Losing 20 lbs from what you show WILL include (considerable) muscle loss. Regardless of what you think about yourself, you are similar to Aaron's 160 NOT Aaron's 188.
If your goal is to look more "ripped" concentrate on doing some progressive resistance work (think weights, think strength work neither of which you mentioned). As long as you do that while avoiding weight gain your body composition will improve.
Also at your height and weight and given the base amount of movement you describe, it is highly doubtful that you are not eating in the 2500+ calorie range. If I were you and I truly believed I was eating 1700, I would diligently work at getting my logging to a state of impeccable perfection in preparation to taking my results to an endocrinologist to investigate me
Read the thread about light people getting lighter; I think someone linked to it above.
I would also consider using a trending weight app.
Take care!1 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »If you've been the same weight for 5 months, you have been eating at maintenance. You will need to eat at a calorie deficit again to lose weight. Since you don't have as much weight to lose now, your body needs less calories to maintain, and you will not have as much room for error in your logging that you did when you were heavier.
Since your post seems to imply that you have not been logging much, I second the suggestion to purchase a food scale and meticulously log your calories for a while to see if it makes any difference.
I would say the same thing ^
OP the silver lining is that you maintained for 5 months. You kept off your weight, which is a success, haven't given up, and are seeking helpful ideas to try.
1 -
guilloskull wrote: »
This is actually my 185. Just took the picture, and makes me frustrated just by looking at it. I think I can even go lower than 160. I'm only 5'9".
Really you are at a good place to start building muscles and have a lot going for you. Don't get frustrated. It takes time and patience but you aren't very far off. It may go slower than you hope, but hang in there
1 -
Agree with above, picture looks like a slim or slender (politically correct terms?) guy. More weight loss may move into waif or famished looks. Maybe try the tips above for muscle toning etc. Good luck and congrats on a great job!0
-
guilloskull wrote: »This is actually my 185. Just took the picture, and makes me frustrated just by looking at it. I think I can even go lower than 160. I'm only 5'9".
What is your goal physique? Do you want to be lean and muscled, or are you going for the ultra-skinny waif/"twink" look? What is your current workout routine (if any)?
From the photo you posted, it's hard to imagine you losing 25-30 more pounds.
I wanna actually tone up and look lean. Not interested in being all muscled up and bulky. The only workout routine I'm doing right now is running for half an hour, five days a week.0 -
Start lifting heavy things. By running and restricting all you're doing is making a smaller version of your current self. You need some mass to fill you out and somewhat counter-intuitively, make you look leaner.2
-
Try Minimalism.0
-
I'd agree with what others said. Although your chest and stomach do not appear toned I think that maybe because of lose skin from your weightloss rather than excess fat. I think how exposed your clavicle is really speaks to how lean in terms of fat you actually are. Comparing to my pictures my clavicle is only as prominent when I was at 160 and was barely visible at 188. Again I have a very small frame.
Could you lose more fat? Yeah probably, but 20 pounds more is a stretch and it's quite possible that for appearance you'd be better off switching to muscle building.1 -
i'd say you're a good weight, and putting on a little muscle - not enough to appear "built" - will help get the toned shape you want.1
-
guilloskull wrote: »
This is actually my 185. Just took the picture, and makes me frustrated just by looking at it. I think I can even go lower than 160. I'm only 5'9".
I think you're more skinny fat than anything. I don't think losing weight would be beneficial for you, i think the improvement you're looking for by getting to 160 would be solved by gaining muscle.
I wouldn't think you should go below your current 1800 calories would be good or something you could even maintain.
I went from 285 to 190 and i thought 185 was going to be my ideal weight but when i got to 190 i still felt like i needed to lose a lot more. I focused on weight training for my abs and it made a great deal of difference in my stomach.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 938 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions