Ideas about why I am not losing weight?

^This.

Do you weigh your food before it is cooked, or after?

Are you on the pill?

How much salt do you add to your food?

When was the last time you change the batteries in the scale?

I concur with the suggestion that you switch your bike ride to school and back with a walk. Also, little things that increase NEAT like taking stairs and parking at the furthest spot from where you are going (assuming there you drive to places at times) can help keep NEAT up. Often when people exercise they reduce their other daily activity.

Of course even with this, it does not explain why you are not losing right now. Even based on possible inaccuracies, you could be eating twice what you currently are and still be losing at a reasonable pace. You are a mystery wrapped in an enigma. I look forward to hearing the solution as you have me scratching my head.

scrocke wrote: »

A couple people asked about my sleep, I sleep around 5 hours each night.

......

So it seems like I should: walk more as I am likely sedentary from school, weigh/double check foods more carefully (looking at you protein powder), the one part I am unsure of is raising calorie limit. I still have some confusion about weather I am starving myself (and thus not losing) or or grossly misrepresenting what I am weighing/recording. Should I try walking more and being more accurate at this calorie level for a week or two first?

Hopefully getting in more activity will help with your sleep. Sleeping so little is almost certainly playing into cortisol issues. For the next week or two, do nothing in your bedroom except sleep. No reading in bed, no checking email on the cellphone, just sleep. If you can't sleep and want to read for a bit, read somewhere else. Classical conditioning: eventually your body will associate your bedroom with sleep.

I don't think you're starving yourself the way you think you are (it doesn't work quite like that), and I don't think your logging is off so much that you're sabotaging yourself by more than, oh, 200 calories or so a day at the absolute worst. For argument's sake, though, let's say you are, and you're really eating 1300 calories a day instead of 1100, and you're maintaining at 1300 calories a day. You have a few choices:

Eat less (based on your logging, I wouldn't recommend this).

Or

Move more. I don't think you're starving yourself per se, but you could be inactive to the point where you burn fewer calories than the "typical" sedentary person. At the risk of inferences from n=1, that was me about two months ago; it can definitely happen in research jobs.

scrocke wrote: »

Do you weigh your food before it is cooked, or after?

Are you on the pill?

How much salt do you add to your food?

When was the last time you change the batteries in the scale?

Before
No, IUD
Little, 1/4-1./2tsp or less per meal (as I usually only have one cooked meal per day)
A few months ago

Having too low a caloric intake is only adding more stress on your body and messing up your hormonal profile even more.

Sorry, incoming menstrual talk. Alright, so a common side effect of an IUD is reduction/elimination of monthly cycle. However, within the past two months (after more than two years of not having it) I started it again. Sigh, I really don't want to have to take a day off class to drive two hours to my Dr.

I can only hope that in the time it takes to get an appointment, I will have been eating more and things will begin to normalize themselves.

Sorry, the hormones I'm talking about aren't related to your menstrual cycle, they are related to metabolism and digestion.

scrocke wrote: »

@SLLRunner
Syntha-6: When I scan the barcode, that is the listing that pops up. I previously admitted that I had not been weighing protein powder but would do so in the future.
PBFit: I weigh the powder here, the verified entry is in TBSP. I weigh half a serving and enter it as 1 TBSP.
Chicken: I weigh the chicken when raw and used the first verified entry that appeared for boneless skinless thighs. I am guessing this is one of the areas I will have to cross check USDA numbers.

Edit: Regarding sleep. I have tried everything you have mentioned in a couple sleep studies I participated in. They don't work for me (I still practice the recommended behaviors, however) Maybe walking more will help, although when I was thin a couple years ago and worked out quiet a bit (military) I still had trouble sleeping more than 5 hours. I will definitely start moving more as is being widely suggested

I sent you a PM, Scrocke.

cerise_noir wrote: »

JShann246 wrote: »

I don't see water consumption being logged. Water is a critical component for fat metabolism, and insufficient water consumption will lead to water retention and reduced metabolic rate.

No, it really isn't... All it does is keeps us hydrated.

Fasting (going without food or otherwise experiencing significant caloric restriction) has been shown to TEMPORARILY increase metabolism and fat burning (presumably a survival adaptation geared towards giving you the energy to go out and find food), but when sustained for more than 3 or 4 consecutive days, has been shown to drastically DECREASE metabolism (putting the body in the dreaded "starvation mode"). At 230 lbs and exercising regularly, 1100 calories a day is effectively fasting. You might need 2 or 3 days of big eating to kickstart your metabolism and at least one larger meal every 3 or 4 days to keep it up.

Starvation mode....nope. It's not a thing. It if was, no one would die from starvation.
Scientific sources for your information regarding fasting, please?

All your bodily functions occur in water or use water to facilitate their occurrence. It is the most basic of all nutrients. If you ingest nothing at all, it is the lack of water that will lead to your demise most quickly.

While you're losing weight, your liver processes and prepares to excrete waste created by the break down of fat cells. Your kidneys are busy cleaning out other toxins. When your kidneys don't get enough water, they can't perform their function efficiently and the liver needs to step in and help. If the liver is forced to help the kidneys, it can't efficiently metabolize fat. Increasing your water intake allows the kidneys to function properly, which in turn leaves the liver available to mobilize fat. (Zeratsky K. WebMD. When you Lose Weight, Where Does the Lost Body Fat Go? 1 March 2012. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/body-fat/AN01327)

In other words, water is indirectly critical for the process of fat metabolism. Once you have "enough" water, more won't automatically cause you to burn more fat, but having less than you require can prevent proper fat metabolism (it won't completely eliminate it in and of itself, but it CAN slow it down significantly).

The ideas that skipping a meal or that short term fasting can lead to "starvation mode" are indeed myths. That doesn't mean the body doesn't have adaptations for dealing with long term food shortage (i.e. legitimate starvation). If you think "starvation mode" means you can survive with absolutely no food and can continue functioning without burning any energy at all, then you're right, "starvation mode" isn't a thing (or else "no one would die of starvation").

We convert chemical energy from food into mechanical energy so we can move. This is not a 100% efficient process, and one's metabolic rate is affected by how efficiently we make that conversion. There are physical limits to how efficient that process can be (just like a wind turbine converting the mechanical energy of moving air into electrical energy cannot hope to be 100% efficient, because it would require causing the air to stop moving entirely, which would prevent the turbine from moving since the air would no longer be moving). There are also physical limits to how inefficient the process can be (whatever isn't converted to mechanical energy is converted to heat, and if our limited ability to control our body temperature allows too high in increase, we would die).

That being said, there is still a rather a wide range of possibility for how efficiently we can make use of the food energy we consume, and studies do show that continuing severe enough caloric restiction for long enough will indeed cause an increase in efficiency (i.e. a decrease in metabolic rate).
This study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3661473
shows an 8% decrease after as little as 60 hours (though most studies don't show significant decrease until between 72 and 96 hours).

The original poster said they had been maintaining rather significant caloric restriction for 40+ consecutive days. This is certainly enough time to adapt to a point of requiring far fewer calories to maintain weight than otherwise (note, this doesn't mean that zero calories would be sufficient to maintain weight). Whether you wish to label it "starvation mode" or not, I don't care.

As for studies showing the increase in metabolism over the course of short term fasting, here are two:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2405717
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10837292

scrocke wrote: »

I admit that eating back calories is anathema to me and something I struggle with. It is hard to get over the mindset that deficit is necessary therefore more deficit must be better. Logically I recognize this, emotionally I don't. I keep thinking that I don't have an exact number for calories burned, just estimates, so I don't want to eat more than I should be.

MFP uses the NEAT method, and as such the system is designed for exercise calories to be eaten back. However, many consider the burns given by MFP to be inflated and only eat a percentage, such as 50%, back.

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/818082/exercise-calories-again-wtf/p1

cerise_noir wrote: »

You mention stress.
I wonder if cortisol is an issue. i personally have never heard it affecting weight loss that much, though.

If not, you might be sleep eating.

Do you have roommates? I yes, could they be the pranking type to add a bunch of oil or sugar to your food (yes, it has happened to me)?

Do you drink alcohol?

If no to the above...I agree with seeing a doctor. Something is not right here. You should be losing weight if you say that you're counting all foods, beverages, cooking oils/condiments, coffee add-ins, etc.

Here's more on the role cortisol plays:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/dietary-restraint-and-cortisol-levels-research-review.html/

...a group of women who scored higher on dietary restraint scores showed elevated baseline cortisol levels. By itself this might not be problematic, but as often as not, these types of dieters are drawn to extreme approaches to dieting.

They throw in a lot of intense exercise, try to cut calories very hard (and this often backfires if disinhibition is high; when these folks break they break) and cortisol levels go through the roof. That often causes cortisol mediated water retention (there are other mechanisms for this, mind you, leptin actually inhibits cortisol release and as it drops on a diet, cortisol levels go up further). Weight and fat loss appear to have stopped or at least slowed significantly. This is compounded even further in female dieters due to the vagaries of their menstrual cycle where water balance is changing enormously week to week anyhow.

And invariably, this type of psychology responds to the stall by going even harder. They attempt to cut calories harder, they start doing more activity. The cycle continues and gets worse. Harder dieting means more cortisol means more water retention means more dieting. Which backfires (other problems come in the long-term with this approach but you’ll have to wait for the book to read about that).

When what they should do is take a day or two off (even one day off from training, at least in men, let’s cortisol drop significantly). Raise calories, especially from carbohydrates. This helps cortisol to drop. More than that they need to find a way to freaking chill out. Meditation, yoga, get a massage...Get in the bath, candles, a little Enya, a glass of wine, have some you-time but please just chill.

OP, regarding your sleep - you mentioned that you have a roommate and you sleep in a bunk bed. Do you share the room? If so, is it possible that your roommate is disturbing your sleep in some way? (You might not be conscious of it, but any noise or movement from them could be affecting you.)

Is it possible that the size of the bed is uncomfortable for you and you don't sleep well due to that? Bunk beds tend to be narrower than regular single/twin beds, and at your current size (not wishing to seem rude!) you may not have enough space to fidget and move around as you might need to in the night.

Do you have the option to sleep in a room on your own, and preferably in a full-size twin or even a double bed? Even if it means switching rooms with someone else for a few weeks to try it out, perhaps it's worth considering? If that's impossible then take a look at your mattress and see if you might need a new one?

Walking might help your sleep as well... even though you said you still had trouble sleeping while in the military, working out or being active as part of your job isn't the same as taking a relaxing walk for your own benefit. It's worth a try, at least!

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

JShann246 wrote: »

cerise_noir wrote: »

JShann246 wrote: »

I don't see water consumption being logged. Water is a critical component for fat metabolism, and insufficient water consumption will lead to water retention and reduced metabolic rate.

No, it really isn't... All it does is keeps us hydrated.

Fasting (going without food or otherwise experiencing significant caloric restriction) has been shown to TEMPORARILY increase metabolism and fat burning (presumably a survival adaptation geared towards giving you the energy to go out and find food), but when sustained for more than 3 or 4 consecutive days, has been shown to drastically DECREASE metabolism (putting the body in the dreaded "starvation mode"). At 230 lbs and exercising regularly, 1100 calories a day is effectively fasting. You might need 2 or 3 days of big eating to kickstart your metabolism and at least one larger meal every 3 or 4 days to keep it up.

Starvation mode....nope. It's not a thing. It if was, no one would die from starvation.
Scientific sources for your information regarding fasting, please?

All your bodily functions occur in water or use water to facilitate their occurrence. It is the most basic of all nutrients. If you ingest nothing at all, it is the lack of water that will lead to your demise most quickly.

While you're losing weight, your liver processes and prepares to excrete waste created by the break down of fat cells. Your kidneys are busy cleaning out other toxins. When your kidneys don't get enough water, they can't perform their function efficiently and the liver needs to step in and help. If the liver is forced to help the kidneys, it can't efficiently metabolize fat. Increasing your water intake allows the kidneys to function properly, which in turn leaves the liver available to mobilize fat. (Zeratsky K. WebMD. When you Lose Weight, Where Does the Lost Body Fat Go? 1 March 2012. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/body-fat/AN01327)

In other words, water is indirectly critical for the process of fat metabolism. Once you have "enough" water, more won't automatically cause you to burn more fat, but having less than you require can prevent proper fat metabolism (it won't completely eliminate it in and of itself, but it CAN slow it down significantly).

The ideas that skipping a meal or that short term fasting can lead to "starvation mode" are indeed myths. That doesn't mean the body doesn't have adaptations for dealing with long term food shortage (i.e. legitimate starvation). If you think "starvation mode" means you can survive with absolutely no food and can continue functioning without burning any energy at all, then you're right, "starvation mode" isn't a thing (or else "no one would die of starvation").

We convert chemical energy from food into mechanical energy so we can move. This is not a 100% efficient process, and one's metabolic rate is affected by how efficiently we make that conversion. There are physical limits to how efficient that process can be (just like a wind turbine converting the mechanical energy of moving air into electrical energy cannot hope to be 100% efficient, because it would require causing the air to stop moving entirely, which would prevent the turbine from moving since the air would no longer be moving). There are also physical limits to how inefficient the process can be (whatever isn't converted to mechanical energy is converted to heat, and if our limited ability to control our body temperature allows too high in increase, we would die).

That being said, there is still a rather a wide range of possibility for how efficiently we can make use of the food energy we consume, and studies do show that continuing severe enough caloric restiction for long enough will indeed cause an increase in efficiency (i.e. a decrease in metabolic rate).
This study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3661473
shows an 8% decrease after as little as 60 hours (though most studies don't show significant decrease until between 72 and 96 hours).

The original poster said they had been maintaining rather significant caloric restriction for 40+ consecutive days. This is certainly enough time to adapt to a point of requiring far fewer calories to maintain weight than otherwise (note, this doesn't mean that zero calories would be sufficient to maintain weight). Whether you wish to label it "starvation mode" or not, I don't care.

As for studies showing the increase in metabolism over the course of short term fasting, here are two:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2405717
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10837292

40 days isn't anywhere near enough to cause any sort of metabolic adaptation. Nowhere near. She'd have to be eating at severe restriction for months and months. None of what you're saying applies to the OP.

Even at that, recent analysis of the data on metabolic adaptation is showing it to be more a matter of decreased movement than anything else. Also, as dieting goes on, there is a sort of relaxing of compliance that seems to take place. A lot of what seems to be plateauing of weight loss due to "adaptation" is really due to non-compliance.

Read some of Lyle McDonald's writings on metabolic adaptation if you want further explanation of what I'm on about.

Also, regarding your fascination with hydration (I'm a big fan myself), I'm not entirely certain that concentration camp victims were adequately hydrated. That didn't seem to inhibit their fat loss on severe caloric restriction.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I guess some just have a silly bone to pick with everything.

scrocke wrote: »

@SLLRunner
Syntha-6: When I scan the barcode, that is the listing that pops up. I previously admitted that I had not been weighing protein powder but would do so in the future.
PBFit: I weigh the powder here, the verified entry is in TBSP. I weigh half a serving and enter it as 1 TBSP.
Chicken: I weigh the chicken when raw and used the first verified entry that appeared for boneless skinless thighs. I am guessing this is one of the areas I will have to cross check USDA numbers.

Edit: Regarding sleep. I have tried everything you have mentioned in a couple sleep studies I participated in. They don't work for me (I still practice the recommended behaviors, however) Maybe walking more will help, although when I was thin a couple years ago and worked out quiet a bit (military) I still had trouble sleeping more than 5 hours. I will definitely start moving more as is being widely suggested

Were you by any chance evaluated for obstructive sleep apnea? ( I was surprised to discover that I had a severe case of it, that it was the underlying cause of my insomnia, and that once addressed, the difference in my energy level was astonishing. I became much more active during the day, and the increased activity made weight loss easier for me.) Just a thought.

i6Shot wrote: »

I'm probably going to suggest what would be considered by some here as unconventional advice but I would eat less carbs. I looked at some of your entries and your carbs were high. I know the conventional wisdom is to eat more complex carbs and lower fat but I can say from personal experience, I have had better results in losing fat by eating more fat and less carbs. I have been following an LCHF lifestyle now for close to a year and have had great results. Results include (but not limited to):

Increase in HDL, decrease in Trigs, fatty liver enzymes lowered from high end and weight loss of 16kg without much effort.

Could I also suggest slightly less cardio and a little more resistance exercises? Doesn't have to include lifting weights, can just be body weight.

Also, your protein could be a little on the high side, but I guess it is better to have slightly more protein than not enough.

I also use Intermittent Fasting to help too.

If theres ideas are of interest you only need to search LCHF and the first site found should be the one you want. Has become very popular lately since it has helped many people. Would post the link but I have been hounded by people for doing so in the past, you know, since it is different advice from what people usually suggest.

LCHF is not for everyone. all that matters for most healthy people is CICO. it doesnt matter if carbs are high or not,if you are in a true deficit you will lose weight(again unless you have health issues,which is case could cause weight loss to slow down or not happen).just because this worked for you and improved your health markers doesnt mean it will for others.people like me who have FH(familial hypercholesterolemia) cannot do keto/LCHF due to the high fat.

i6Shot wrote: »

CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »

LCHF is not for everyone. all that matters for most healthy people is CICO. it doesnt matter if carbs are high or not,if you are in a true deficit you will lose weight(again unless you have health issues,which is case could cause weight loss to slow down or not happen).just because this worked for you and improved your health markers doesnt mean it will for others.people like me who have FH(familial hypercholesterolemia) cannot do keto/LCHF due to the high fat.

Where did I suggest it was for everyone? I was merely offering an alternative to what would normally be the same CICO answers.

I pointed out quite clearly that it worked for me and if the OP wanted to try it the could simply search for it. I only pointed out that my health markers improved because everyone is usually fat phobic and thinks that by following a diet higher in fat will mean their health will get worse. Well for most this isn't an issue and granted, in your situation it may be due to your FH.

LCHF isn't for everyone just like CICO isn't for me, but it is still an option if the OP wanted to try it. Don't be so quick to discredit because it isn't for you.

I never discredited it at all but even LCHF if you are not in a deficit you wont lose weight. if someone else wants to eat that way its fine and their choice never said it wasnt but you were saying the OPS carbs and possible protein were too high and you suggested they eat less carbs. so I just said carbs had nothing to do with it(unless the OP is IR,diabetic,has PCOS or other health issues that is) its still about CICO, if you eat too much no matter what way of eating you choose, you will gain weight.. There is no magical way of eating it still boils down to one thing,That was all I was saying. Im glad LCHF worked for you but just stated that it doesnt work for everyone and some think that if they do LCHF no matter what they will lose and become fat burning machines. you would be shocked at what some people will believe when it comes to weight loss.

i6Shot wrote: »

CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »

LCHF is not for everyone. all that matters for most healthy people is CICO. it doesnt matter if carbs are high or not,if you are in a true deficit you will lose weight(again unless you have health issues,which is case could cause weight loss to slow down or not happen).just because this worked for you and improved your health markers doesnt mean it will for others.people like me who have FH(familial hypercholesterolemia) cannot do keto/LCHF due to the high fat.

Where did I suggest it was for everyone? I was merely offering an alternative to what would normally be the same CICO answers.

I pointed out quite clearly that it worked for me and if the OP wanted to try it the could simply search for it. I only pointed out that my health markers improved because everyone is usually fat phobic and thinks that by following a diet higher in fat will mean their health will get worse. Well for most this isn't an issue and granted, in your situation it may be due to your FH.

LCHF isn't for everyone just like CICO isn't for me, but it is still an option if the OP wanted to try it. Don't be so quick to discredit because it isn't for you.

Setting aside medical issues that need attention, CICO is a requirement to getting desired weight management results:

To lose weight, you must eat less calories than you burn.
To gain weight, you must eat more calories than you burn.
To maintain weight, you eat about the same amount of calories as you burn.

Type of diet is preference only, as is how you create and maintain the required calorie deficit to lose weight.