Why is my weight loss unsuccessful
Replies
-
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »prattiger65 wrote: »Here is a fact for you. Everyone who eats @ 3500 calories less than they expend loses about a pound of weight. If you have a metabolic issue that causes you to burn fewer calories, you will necessarily need to eat fewer calories to lose weight. None of that other fluff matters IN TERMS OF WEIGHT LOSS. This is 9th grade biology level science, it doesn't take a Phd.
I know its all about CICO but take me for example,I have a metabolic disorder. I have been on mfp almost 3 years,I have weighed everything over the last 2 years.in the last year it took me 6+ months to lose 1.2 lbs. I even dropped my calories and everything,nothing happened. (its taken me almost 5 years to lose a little over 42lbs).I recently this winter decided to stick with maintenance, mfp gave me something like 1800+ calories, (my fitbit tells me I burn about 2500 on a good day but its always over 2200). Im eating 1712 calories(which is less than mfp gave me) and from jan 27th to feb 2nd I lost 1.8 lbs(which could have been water weight as I retain water longer than the average person even when I cut sodium down).
before(that 6 month stint) I wasnt losing anything(I was netting around 1400+ calories during this time though too), in maintenance I lost, although the first month or so I maintained my weight. now my weight is steady. I know its only been a little over a week. But my body is funny. when I had it set to lose .5lb a week,I was only losing .5lb a month if that, no jokes. so for me weight loss is really really slow and all my blood panels come back great. no thyroid issues, no hormone issues,etc. so for me to lose 1lb eating 500 less than my TDEE per day doesnt result in 1lb a week and most of the time its not even 1lb a month.
I at one point was eating less than 1500 calories(again I weigh everything on a scale) and still was not losing anything and I was burning a lot of calories,even working out 2 times a day.I would eat back a little less than half of my exercise calories and nothing was happening. I still have a little over 25lbs to lose.Im waiting until it gets warm again and then I will see where Im at. I have never lost at the rate I had it set to.even lowering my calories that mfp gave me.This is the first time I have really tried to lose weight too. I have never been on any diet or weight loss plan in the past. so for me its slower than it should be,I dont know why There is really no reason why it should be slower than normal but it is.I have tried everything and nothing works the way it should for me. I just have to keep going and be patient.
Maybe your fitbit is overestimating calories burned. how can you have a metabolic disorder but have all good blood work?
I have FH and its considered a metabolic disorder/disease. the only thing that was high was my cholesterol.but its at a normal number with meds and a low fat diet.also I have had my fitbit for awhile. I get in over 13000 steps most days. and even if my fitbit were wrong eating less I should have lost weight.
Get a BMR/metabolic test done and see what it says. This way you'll know how much you need to eat. My bf's co worker has this and had to start on statins and he's thin but I guess everyone is different. Your fitbit doesn't take medical conditions into account.
I get that fitbit doesnt take that into consideration. but even before I got the fitbit things were the same slower than normal weight loss. as for getting a BMR/metabolic test done. I cant afford it and Im sure my insurance doesnt cover it. there are 2 in my state they are over 200 miles one way,the other one is 100 miles one way. wouldnt you think though even without my fitbit I would have lost weight eating less than 1500? anything less than that and I have NO energy,my workouts suffer and Im lethargic.Im eating 1712 now and I am feeling better, and have more energy. before I was literally dragging my *kitten* all day and wanted to nap. since I upped my calories I feel better all around
the test isn't that expensive, about $100. could be less depending on where you live.
even $100 is more than I can afford to be honest. plus counting gas to get there.where I live it would probably be more since Im in BFE(wv to be exact).I could probably save up but it would take me a few months.I will talk to my daughters endo and see if she knows of anywhere closer and what it may cost though.she wants to test her to see if she has FH or not as well. she has a tough time losing weight too,they thought she had a thyroid disorder,IR or something like that and all her tests from the last year and a half have came back normal too.I just know that eating too little for me would not be idea,I know I would have to to lose weight but for me its not worth being tired and having no energy to get anything done.
sorry, it's actually less. more like 60 to 70. i dunno, i would have it done if I were having a hard time losing weight despite eating well and exercising.0 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list
...
I keep tabs open on my browser for the USDA database and for convertunits.com, which is always useful.
Side note - you can enter in google and bing search bars something like ' 3.25 oz = g ' or ' 32 F = C ' and you will get the converted result. Easy Peasy.
i did not know that. . you are awesome!1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »wanderingartistry wrote: »My friend actually lost when she increased her calorie intake. Not drastically.
Your body may be in starvation mode from too few calories. That doesn't sound like 200 calories to me. Assuming you're making something like a 4 eggwhite omlette (80 calories), 5 oz of veggies like brocoli and cauliflower (which have...50 calories per cup or something, if even), and 6 oz of chicken breast throughout the day (about 250 calories), it sounds like you're not getting enough.
I have heard you need to eat your weight x 10 to get even the maintenance amount of calories you need to function. That seems like a place to start.
If it appears your lose weight when increasing calories it's either (1) you're eating less than you burn but you just don't realize it or (2) natural weight fluctuation.
Starvation mode is a myth as to us ordinary dieters.
Eating 10X your weight to get to maintenance is silly. My weight fluctuates between 140 and 145 lbs, so by your theory my maintenance would be between 1400 and 1450 calories. Just for your information, I would lose big time on that because my maintenance without exercise is approximately 1930 calories.
This happens often when you increase calories due to an increase in energy...when I went to maintenance, by my data and doing the math, it looked like it would be around 2,400 calories and I was all kinds of sad. As I upped calories though, I had more energy...I found that my training improved and I could go harder/longer...I found myself more fidgety...had a hard time sitting still for t.v. shows, movies, sporting events, etc...
My weight loss had slowed to a trickle when I went to maintenance and then as I upped my calories it picked back up again and I lost a few more pounds...I'm pretty sure it was due to the increase in movement that coincided with an increase in calories...I leveled off and put on a few pounds of glycogen weight when I got to around 3,000 calories.
This was who I wrote The Roadmap back in 2012. Groups like Eat More 2 Weigh Less and IPOARM push people to eat the most they can while maintaining weight loss. The higher the quality of food, the higher quality of fat loss.
I love these stories.2 -
This content has been removed.
-
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list
...
I keep tabs open on my browser for the USDA database and for convertunits.com, which is always useful.
Side note - you can enter in google and bing search bars something like ' 3.25 oz = g ' or ' 32 F = C ' and you will get the converted result. Easy Peasy.
I use this all the time. It also works for quick currency conversions. You type in like "25 USD to AUD" and it tells you.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I invite the starvation mode debate to the thread I bumped earlier (a thread which is also a part of the stickies)1
-
Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »wanderingartistry wrote: »My friend actually lost when she increased her calorie intake. Not drastically.
Your body may be in starvation mode from too few calories. That doesn't sound like 200 calories to me. Assuming you're making something like a 4 eggwhite omlette (80 calories), 5 oz of veggies like brocoli and cauliflower (which have...50 calories per cup or something, if even), and 6 oz of chicken breast throughout the day (about 250 calories), it sounds like you're not getting enough.
I have heard you need to eat your weight x 10 to get even the maintenance amount of calories you need to function. That seems like a place to start.
If it appears your lose weight when increasing calories it's either (1) you're eating less than you burn but you just don't realize it or (2) natural weight fluctuation.
Starvation mode is a myth as to us ordinary dieters.
Eating 10X your weight to get to maintenance is silly. My weight fluctuates between 140 and 145 lbs, so by your theory my maintenance would be between 1400 and 1450 calories. Just for your information, I would lose big time on that because my maintenance without exercise is approximately 1930 calories.
This happens often when you increase calories due to an increase in energy...when I went to maintenance, by my data and doing the math, it looked like it would be around 2,400 calories and I was all kinds of sad. As I upped calories though, I had more energy...I found that my training improved and I could go harder/longer...I found myself more fidgety...had a hard time sitting still for t.v. shows, movies, sporting events, etc...
My weight loss had slowed to a trickle when I went to maintenance and then as I upped my calories it picked back up again and I lost a few more pounds...I'm pretty sure it was due to the increase in movement that coincided with an increase in calories...I leveled off and put on a few pounds of glycogen weight when I got to around 3,000 calories.
This was who I wrote The Roadmap back in 2012. Groups like Eat More 2 Weigh Less and IPOARM push people to eat the most they can while maintaining weight loss. The higher the quality of food, the higher quality of fat loss.
I love these stories.
I remember the Roadmap
...I started in the fall 2012. 0 -
Colorscheme wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »prattiger65 wrote: »Here is a fact for you. Everyone who eats @ 3500 calories less than they expend loses about a pound of weight. If you have a metabolic issue that causes you to burn fewer calories, you will necessarily need to eat fewer calories to lose weight. None of that other fluff matters IN TERMS OF WEIGHT LOSS. This is 9th grade biology level science, it doesn't take a Phd.
I know its all about CICO but take me for example,I have a metabolic disorder. I have been on mfp almost 3 years,I have weighed everything over the last 2 years.in the last year it took me 6+ months to lose 1.2 lbs. I even dropped my calories and everything,nothing happened. (its taken me almost 5 years to lose a little over 42lbs).I recently this winter decided to stick with maintenance, mfp gave me something like 1800+ calories, (my fitbit tells me I burn about 2500 on a good day but its always over 2200). Im eating 1712 calories(which is less than mfp gave me) and from jan 27th to feb 2nd I lost 1.8 lbs(which could have been water weight as I retain water longer than the average person even when I cut sodium down).
before(that 6 month stint) I wasnt losing anything(I was netting around 1400+ calories during this time though too), in maintenance I lost, although the first month or so I maintained my weight. now my weight is steady. I know its only been a little over a week. But my body is funny. when I had it set to lose .5lb a week,I was only losing .5lb a month if that, no jokes. so for me weight loss is really really slow and all my blood panels come back great. no thyroid issues, no hormone issues,etc. so for me to lose 1lb eating 500 less than my TDEE per day doesnt result in 1lb a week and most of the time its not even 1lb a month.
I at one point was eating less than 1500 calories(again I weigh everything on a scale) and still was not losing anything and I was burning a lot of calories,even working out 2 times a day.I would eat back a little less than half of my exercise calories and nothing was happening. I still have a little over 25lbs to lose.Im waiting until it gets warm again and then I will see where Im at. I have never lost at the rate I had it set to.even lowering my calories that mfp gave me.This is the first time I have really tried to lose weight too. I have never been on any diet or weight loss plan in the past. so for me its slower than it should be,I dont know why There is really no reason why it should be slower than normal but it is.I have tried everything and nothing works the way it should for me. I just have to keep going and be patient.
Maybe your fitbit is overestimating calories burned. how can you have a metabolic disorder but have all good blood work?
I have FH and its considered a metabolic disorder/disease. the only thing that was high was my cholesterol.but its at a normal number with meds and a low fat diet.also I have had my fitbit for awhile. I get in over 13000 steps most days. and even if my fitbit were wrong eating less I should have lost weight.
Get a BMR/metabolic test done and see what it says. This way you'll know how much you need to eat. My bf's co worker has this and had to start on statins and he's thin but I guess everyone is different. Your fitbit doesn't take medical conditions into account.
I get that fitbit doesnt take that into consideration. but even before I got the fitbit things were the same slower than normal weight loss. as for getting a BMR/metabolic test done. I cant afford it and Im sure my insurance doesnt cover it. there are 2 in my state they are over 200 miles one way,the other one is 100 miles one way. wouldnt you think though even without my fitbit I would have lost weight eating less than 1500? anything less than that and I have NO energy,my workouts suffer and Im lethargic.Im eating 1712 now and I am feeling better, and have more energy. before I was literally dragging my *kitten* all day and wanted to nap. since I upped my calories I feel better all around
the test isn't that expensive, about $100. could be less depending on where you live.
even $100 is more than I can afford to be honest. plus counting gas to get there.where I live it would probably be more since Im in BFE(wv to be exact).I could probably save up but it would take me a few months.I will talk to my daughters endo and see if she knows of anywhere closer and what it may cost though.she wants to test her to see if she has FH or not as well. she has a tough time losing weight too,they thought she had a thyroid disorder,IR or something like that and all her tests from the last year and a half have came back normal too.I just know that eating too little for me would not be idea,I know I would have to to lose weight but for me its not worth being tired and having no energy to get anything done.
sorry, it's actually less. more like 60 to 70. i dunno, i would have it done if I were having a hard time losing weight despite eating well and exercising.
yeah I would if I could afford it. I mean I have lost 40+ lbs but its taken like I said 4 years. and I have lost a lot of fat.maybe I just need to get back to lifting weights and see if it changes how my body looks. but I have to exercise due to my health issues so.and Im keeping the weight off it seems so.guess I cant complain too much lol0 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I shudder when i find a recipe i really want to try and the amounts are listed in cups, spoons and God forbid, scoops!!! I keep searching until i find a similar recipe with accurate weights in grams.
I have a photocopy of a page from my mother's ancient cookbook stuck to the side of my fridge. It lists volume-to-weight conversions for flour, sugar, etc. (all the common baking ingredients). I use it to convert recipes and it works great.
The USDA site lists multiple "servings" for almost all items and lists suggested weights for said volumes. For example, the 1 cup listing for Unbleached AP Flour has it also labeled as 125g. I tend to use it's volume-to-weight suggestions.
Interesting side note. I make biscuits every morning for my family. When I use one brand of flour, to get the right consistency for the dough, I need 230 grams of flour. When I use a different brand, I need 200 grams. I don't know if it's the variety of wheat that makes a difference, maybe? It's strange. Both of them are store brands.0 -
Colorscheme wrote: »I find it ironic that a bunch of people on a thread for weight loss advice and support, who are all here because they at some point needed to lose weight, think that they are all experts on weight loss. You clearly DO NOT have all the answers.
Everyone's body and metabolism is different. The point you are at in your life also contributes to how you lose weight as much as what you eat, when you eat, how you cook it, how you weight it, and how you log it. For example, it took me 10 weeks to lose 25lbs when I was age 34, and it's taken me 8 weeks to lose 6 at age 39 and I am using the same method, similar foods, and same level of activity. My sister lost 61lbs over 6 months eating the same number of calories, and similar foods as I do. The variable here: my thyroid function has been declining but isn't low enough yet for corrective medication.
So, unless someone wants to step up and identify themselves as a board certified endocrinologist, everyone's point of view and advice is antecdotal at best.
Seems to be a case of projection. Few if any claim to have all the answers, but the more respected posters do question all the answers rather than answer all the questions. Personally I prefer those who stand behind the veracity of their statements than rely on letters behind one's name.
Individual metabolism is strikingly similar - the only standout variable being lean muscle mass. Age related change is solely linked to decreased muscle mass. Even highly trained specialists make poor analysts of their own behavior due to the inherent bias involved. Thyroid function carries ~5% impact on REE/BMR. This is a variable you self identified contradictory to the data. What was the result of your full thyroid panel?
I've had 4 thyroid panels over the last three years. However, if your not a board certified endocrinologist my sharing those numbers with you does me zero good. I prefer to stick with the advise of professionals with the letters behind their names when it comes to matters of my health. If I want a google based medical diagnosis I'm fully capable of doing that myself.
My friend has hypothyroid. has been able to lose weight. another has no thyroid, she's thin as a rail. thyroid problems don't account for massive weight gain the same way PCOS doesn't. 10-15 lbs, yes but above that is attributed to just eating too many calories.Colorscheme wrote: »I find it ironic that a bunch of people on a thread for weight loss advice and support, who are all here because they at some point needed to lose weight, think that they are all experts on weight loss. You clearly DO NOT have all the answers.
Everyone's body and metabolism is different. The point you are at in your life also contributes to how you lose weight as much as what you eat, when you eat, how you cook it, how you weight it, and how you log it. For example, it took me 10 weeks to lose 25lbs when I was age 34, and it's taken me 8 weeks to lose 6 at age 39 and I am using the same method, similar foods, and same level of activity. My sister lost 61lbs over 6 months eating the same number of calories, and similar foods as I do. The variable here: my thyroid function has been declining but isn't low enough yet for corrective medication.
So, unless someone wants to step up and identify themselves as a board certified endocrinologist, everyone's point of view and advice is antecdotal at best.
Seems to be a case of projection. Few if any claim to have all the answers, but the more respected posters do question all the answers rather than answer all the questions. Personally I prefer those who stand behind the veracity of their statements than rely on letters behind one's name.
Individual metabolism is strikingly similar - the only standout variable being lean muscle mass. Age related change is solely linked to decreased muscle mass. Even highly trained specialists make poor analysts of their own behavior due to the inherent bias involved. Thyroid function carries ~5% impact on REE/BMR. This is a variable you self identified contradictory to the data. What was the result of your full thyroid panel?
I've had 4 thyroid panels over the last three years. However, if your not a board certified endocrinologist my sharing those numbers with you does me zero good. I prefer to stick with the advise of professionals with the letters behind their names when it comes to matters of my health. If I want a google based medical diagnosis I'm fully capable of doing that myself.
My friend has hypothyroid. has been able to lose weight. another has no thyroid, she's thin as a rail. thyroid problems don't account for massive weight gain the same way PCOS doesn't. 10-15 lbs, yes but above that is attributed to just eating too many calories.
Again, every body is different. My step-mother also doesn't have a thyroid but she does have issues losing weight. She is following the exact same diet that my father follows, as prescribed by his endocrinologist and under the supervision of a certified nutritionist, which is also the same diet my father lost 120lbs on. Just because YOU didn't experience something does not mean that it isn't someone else's reality. I've yet to hear an actual expert weigh in on the topic and I'm still only hearing anecdotal experiences presented as facts.
Bodies are not *that* different.
It's comforting to think that they are, I understand that.
You know it's funny, I used to think my thyroid was a terrible problem when I weighed 210 pounds. I used to think my thyroid was a terrible problem when I tried countless diets and they didn't perform to my expectations.
Then I faced reality.
I'm 54. I have three autoimmune diseases. I've lost 95 pounds. I stopped making excuses.
My body wasn't different.
I wasn't too old.
My thyroid wasn't a problem
My arthritis wasn't giving me too much fatigue to get out there and move.
I was eating too much and telling myself I wasn't.
Logging accurately and weighing my food to prove how much I was eating opened my eyes to the truth.
I lost weight more quickly now than I did when I was younger because I stopped telling myself lies, embraced the truth, and acknowledged how weight loss actually works.24 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »wanderingartistry wrote: »My friend actually lost when she increased her calorie intake. Not drastically.
Your body may be in starvation mode from too few calories. That doesn't sound like 200 calories to me. Assuming you're making something like a 4 eggwhite omlette (80 calories), 5 oz of veggies like brocoli and cauliflower (which have...50 calories per cup or something, if even), and 6 oz of chicken breast throughout the day (about 250 calories), it sounds like you're not getting enough.
I have heard you need to eat your weight x 10 to get even the maintenance amount of calories you need to function. That seems like a place to start.
If it appears your lose weight when increasing calories it's either (1) you're eating less than you burn but you just don't realize it or (2) natural weight fluctuation.
Starvation mode is a myth as to us ordinary dieters.
Eating 10X your weight to get to maintenance is silly. My weight fluctuates between 140 and 145 lbs, so by your theory my maintenance would be between 1400 and 1450 calories. Just for your information, I would lose big time on that because my maintenance without exercise is approximately 1930 calories.
This happens often when you increase calories due to an increase in energy...when I went to maintenance, by my data and doing the math, it looked like it would be around 2,400 calories and I was all kinds of sad. As I upped calories though, I had more energy...I found that my training improved and I could go harder/longer...I found myself more fidgety...had a hard time sitting still for t.v. shows, movies, sporting events, etc...
My weight loss had slowed to a trickle when I went to maintenance and then as I upped my calories it picked back up again and I lost a few more pounds...I'm pretty sure it was due to the increase in movement that coincided with an increase in calories...I leveled off and put on a few pounds of glycogen weight when I got to around 3,000 calories.
This was who I wrote The Roadmap back in 2012. Groups like Eat More 2 Weigh Less and IPOARM push people to eat the most they can while maintaining weight loss. The higher the quality of food, the higher quality of fat loss.
I love these stories.
I remember the Roadmap ...I started in the fall 2012.
That's what started this Madness.
We used to have a private group with people dedicated to running numbers and macros.
It works though!0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I shudder when i find a recipe i really want to try and the amounts are listed in cups, spoons and God forbid, scoops!!! I keep searching until i find a similar recipe with accurate weights in grams.
I have a photocopy of a page from my mother's ancient cookbook stuck to the side of my fridge. It lists volume-to-weight conversions for flour, sugar, etc. (all the common baking ingredients). I use it to convert recipes and it works great.
The USDA site lists multiple "servings" for almost all items and lists suggested weights for said volumes. For example, the 1 cup listing for Unbleached AP Flour has it also labeled as 125g. I tend to use it's volume-to-weight suggestions.
Interesting side note. I make biscuits every morning for my family. When I use one brand of flour, to get the right consistency for the dough, I need 230 grams of flour. When I use a different brand, I need 200 grams. I don't know if it's the variety of wheat that makes a difference, maybe? It's strange. Both of them are store brands.
Could be the variety, could be the coarseness/fineness of the grind, or even a combination of factors. The good news is you have been doing it long enough to know and maintain consistency. 1 -
cerise_noir wrote: »Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »chynaloveee1 wrote: »@misskarne those are the "recommended serving size. So if it says 16 crackers for 160 cals, then I'll count out 16 crackers, lol 1pkg is the packet my protein powder comes in (one packet per use) and the granola bars come 2 in a pack "2 bar"
Theoretically you should be losing weight eating 1200 calories. Based on your weight, calorie intake, and the descriptions of some of the foods you are eating there are likely a few things going on. 1. You are not eating enough calories per day, 2. The calories you are eating are not nutritionally dense, 3. You may be inaccurately weighing some things, 4. You most likely are not tracking every bite that goes in your mouth.
For perspective, I am 137 lbs and 5'6", which is a healthy weight for my height and makes losing weight fairly difficult. I've got 26.5% body fat so I'm clearly NOT an athlete I eat 1250-1500 calories per day and I do moderate exercise for about 1 hour 3x a week. I actually measure more like you do, so I don't weigh every little thing perfectly and I rely quite a bit on containers with predetermined measurements quite a bit but I track EVERYTHING (including cough drops). I'm losing between 0.5 and 1.5 lbs a week. I eat 6 times a day (3 meals and 3 snacks). I cook everything, 90% of what I eat or use to cook is whole, fresh foods (fruits, veggies, meat, etc) and I try and use minimal processed foods (crackers, granola bars). Protein shakes should be used as a supliment to boost protein in addition to a well rounded diet, not as a meal replacement. Food you can chew is always best!
I have worked with a nutrition coach, which is helpful for accountability. Weight watchers also works for me. You're welcome to add me as a friend so you can take a look at my diary and see what kind of things I'm eating and what a typical day looks like.
@KT6377 If she should be losing on 1200 and her diaries are looking like shes eating between 800-900, give or take logging errors.. im confused by your comment of "you're not eating enough calories per day"...
When you drop your carbs too low, which will happen on an extremely low calorie diet, you do go into a form of 'starvation mode' because your leptin hormone levels drop which signals your body to hold onto its fat. This is medically documented and the science behind carb cycling diets. However, this is likely not the case based on her current weight and is more likely a problem with tracking and quality of food.
No, not even close. Have you ever heard of LCHF? Macros have no bearing when it comes to weight loss. I've been low carb, moderate carb, high protein, moderate protein, and equal across the macro board. If I keep the same deficit, I lose the same amount of weight regardless of macro split. Also, starvation mode does not work in the way you state. If it did, no one would die from starvation.
No one ever maintained fat or even gained fat in a deficit.
I do agree that this could be a logging issue.
1. Your carbs and all your macros would be low if you are not eating enough calories. It's math.
2. 'Starvation mode' isn't really about starving. But we are beyond this point now. Still waiting for an actual expert...
3. Yes, a deficit is a deficit. You can consume nothing but M&M's and Bud Light and still lose weight as long as there is a deficit.
4. Most weight loss issues are due to inaccurate logging unless there is another medical reason. Cue the armchair experts...
See, the thing is, you made the assertion. The burden of proof is on you. The studies you posted were already refuted.
No one here needs to be an expert to prove you wrong. You haven't even made your case.
And, btw, you're wrong. Yes, leptin levels drop when you diet drastically. However, what was previously thought to be weight stall due to metabolic adaptation in cases of contest preppers was found to be secret binge eating that had the scale stalling. They weren't "holding onto fat". They simply weren't in a caloric deficit.
Lyle McDonald has something about this on his website, but I've had a rotten day (detached retina) and am not about to look it up.
11 -
Letters behind names in the medical field could be responsible for third leading cause of death according to this study...
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_suggests_medical_errors_now_third_leading_cause_of_death_in_the_us
I am not advocating against professionals but it's best to educate onself and don't lean solely on a person who is subject to human error.
5 -
chynaloveee1 wrote: »@SierraFatToSkinny I'm on my period right now lol
This alone can alter a woman's weight by several pounds - you need to be aware of that and look at your progress as a long haul not a day by day or week by week thing.chynaloveee1 wrote: »which is a lot for me because I'm use to eating just one big meal a day
you managed to get to 279lbs on one meal a day?
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »wanderingartistry wrote: »My friend actually lost when she increased her calorie intake. Not drastically.
Your body may be in starvation mode from too few calories. That doesn't sound like 200 calories to me. Assuming you're making something like a 4 eggwhite omlette (80 calories), 5 oz of veggies like brocoli and cauliflower (which have...50 calories per cup or something, if even), and 6 oz of chicken breast throughout the day (about 250 calories), it sounds like you're not getting enough.
I have heard you need to eat your weight x 10 to get even the maintenance amount of calories you need to function. That seems like a place to start.
If it appears your lose weight when increasing calories it's either (1) you're eating less than you burn but you just don't realize it or (2) natural weight fluctuation.
Starvation mode is a myth as to us ordinary dieters.
Eating 10X your weight to get to maintenance is silly. My weight fluctuates between 140 and 145 lbs, so by your theory my maintenance would be between 1400 and 1450 calories. Just for your information, I would lose big time on that because my maintenance without exercise is approximately 1930 calories.
This happens often when you increase calories due to an increase in energy...when I went to maintenance, by my data and doing the math, it looked like it would be around 2,400 calories and I was all kinds of sad. As I upped calories though, I had more energy...I found that my training improved and I could go harder/longer...I found myself more fidgety...had a hard time sitting still for t.v. shows, movies, sporting events, etc...
My weight loss had slowed to a trickle when I went to maintenance and then as I upped my calories it picked back up again and I lost a few more pounds...I'm pretty sure it was due to the increase in movement that coincided with an increase in calories...I leveled off and put on a few pounds of glycogen weight when I got to around 3,000 calories.
This was who I wrote The Roadmap back in 2012. Groups like Eat More 2 Weigh Less and IPOARM push people to eat the most they can while maintaining weight loss. The higher the quality of food, the higher quality of fat loss.
I love these stories.
I remember the Roadmap ...I started in the fall 2012.
That's what started this Madness.
We used to have a private group with people dedicated to running numbers and macros.
It works though!
How is it madness if it works?
Why do you seem hellbent on creating a dichotomy where there really doesn't need to be one?
I get that you're with PN now, and you like to appeal to your classes in psychology as well for informing your new stance, but for some of us, psychology is exactly why numbers are comforting.
There's room at this whole weight loss table for eyeballers and slice of bread weighers alike.
What concerns me is that you, someone who is supposedly trying to present themselves as a "coach", thinks that there's just one approach that's right. You can seriously sit there with a straight face and say that one size fits all when it comes to this whole deal?
Really?
I think I'd personally prefer to have a coach who recognized that people are coming from different places, are overweight due to different factors, and have different personality types that respond to different approaches.
I'd also appreciate having a coach who didn't feel the need to insult different approaches than his pet one at every turn.18 -
This content has been removed.
-
Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »Very much in agreement here... lol
you said it much more gracefully then i did earlier though haha
I don't know. I think confetti is rather festive. I was a fan of how you put things.5 -
I'm so grateful to have found a coach/trainer here on Mfp that doesn't subscribe to a one size fits all. He works with me and my particular "hangups" adapting with ease.
You know who you are:)5 -
This content has been removed.
-
^^^if this is for me, I don't understand, I was agreeing with you and Gottaburn!0
-
This content has been removed.
-
Ah see it now. Lol.0
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »wanderingartistry wrote: »My friend actually lost when she increased her calorie intake. Not drastically.
Your body may be in starvation mode from too few calories. That doesn't sound like 200 calories to me. Assuming you're making something like a 4 eggwhite omlette (80 calories), 5 oz of veggies like brocoli and cauliflower (which have...50 calories per cup or something, if even), and 6 oz of chicken breast throughout the day (about 250 calories), it sounds like you're not getting enough.
I have heard you need to eat your weight x 10 to get even the maintenance amount of calories you need to function. That seems like a place to start.
If it appears your lose weight when increasing calories it's either (1) you're eating less than you burn but you just don't realize it or (2) natural weight fluctuation.
Starvation mode is a myth as to us ordinary dieters.
Eating 10X your weight to get to maintenance is silly. My weight fluctuates between 140 and 145 lbs, so by your theory my maintenance would be between 1400 and 1450 calories. Just for your information, I would lose big time on that because my maintenance without exercise is approximately 1930 calories.
This happens often when you increase calories due to an increase in energy...when I went to maintenance, by my data and doing the math, it looked like it would be around 2,400 calories and I was all kinds of sad. As I upped calories though, I had more energy...I found that my training improved and I could go harder/longer...I found myself more fidgety...had a hard time sitting still for t.v. shows, movies, sporting events, etc...
My weight loss had slowed to a trickle when I went to maintenance and then as I upped my calories it picked back up again and I lost a few more pounds...I'm pretty sure it was due to the increase in movement that coincided with an increase in calories...I leveled off and put on a few pounds of glycogen weight when I got to around 3,000 calories.
This was who I wrote The Roadmap back in 2012. Groups like Eat More 2 Weigh Less and IPOARM push people to eat the most they can while maintaining weight loss. The higher the quality of food, the higher quality of fat loss.
I love these stories.
I remember the Roadmap ...I started in the fall 2012.
That's what started this Madness.
We used to have a private group with people dedicated to running numbers and macros.
It works though!
How is it madness if it works?
Why do you seem hellbent on creating a dichotomy where there really doesn't need to be one?
I get that you're with PN now, and you like to appeal to your classes in psychology as well for informing your new stance, but for some of us, psychology is exactly why numbers are comforting.
There's room at this whole weight loss table for eyeballers and slice of bread weighers alike.
What concerns me is that you, someone who is supposedly trying to present themselves as a "coach", thinks that there's just one approach that's right. You can seriously sit there with a straight face and say that one size fits all when it comes to this whole deal?
Really?
I think I'd personally prefer to have a coach who recognized that people are coming from different places, are overweight due to different factors, and have different personality types that respond to different approaches.
I'd also appreciate having a coach who didn't feel the need to insult different approaches than his pet one at every turn.
You've actually missed my entire point from waaaay up!
Counting calories, weighing food, assigning points, or hand portion control doesn't matter if the underlying issues aren't fixed.
That's usually the issue right?
Look at serial starters.
They don't fix the underlying issues.
When did insult any approach?
Plenty of ways to lose weight. I'm simply trying to tell people that:
1) don't cut calories too low
2) don't exercise too the extreme
3) fix sleep and stress
99% of my posts over the past 5 years have had the same message.
As a side note, I bend over backwards for my group and retain over 90% of my clients once they've reached their initial goals because of how I coach.
Anyway. Look at my posts both under this name and helloitsdan, and you'll see a common theme.
Don't eat too little, relax, and let the weight loss happen.
0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »wanderingartistry wrote: »My friend actually lost when she increased her calorie intake. Not drastically.
Your body may be in starvation mode from too few calories. That doesn't sound like 200 calories to me. Assuming you're making something like a 4 eggwhite omlette (80 calories), 5 oz of veggies like brocoli and cauliflower (which have...50 calories per cup or something, if even), and 6 oz of chicken breast throughout the day (about 250 calories), it sounds like you're not getting enough.
I have heard you need to eat your weight x 10 to get even the maintenance amount of calories you need to function. That seems like a place to start.
If it appears your lose weight when increasing calories it's either (1) you're eating less than you burn but you just don't realize it or (2) natural weight fluctuation.
Starvation mode is a myth as to us ordinary dieters.
Eating 10X your weight to get to maintenance is silly. My weight fluctuates between 140 and 145 lbs, so by your theory my maintenance would be between 1400 and 1450 calories. Just for your information, I would lose big time on that because my maintenance without exercise is approximately 1930 calories.
This happens often when you increase calories due to an increase in energy...when I went to maintenance, by my data and doing the math, it looked like it would be around 2,400 calories and I was all kinds of sad. As I upped calories though, I had more energy...I found that my training improved and I could go harder/longer...I found myself more fidgety...had a hard time sitting still for t.v. shows, movies, sporting events, etc...
My weight loss had slowed to a trickle when I went to maintenance and then as I upped my calories it picked back up again and I lost a few more pounds...I'm pretty sure it was due to the increase in movement that coincided with an increase in calories...I leveled off and put on a few pounds of glycogen weight when I got to around 3,000 calories.
I understand. With more movement at upped calories, you ended up burning enough calorie to lose weight.0 -
Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »wanderingartistry wrote: »My friend actually lost when she increased her calorie intake. Not drastically.
Your body may be in starvation mode from too few calories. That doesn't sound like 200 calories to me. Assuming you're making something like a 4 eggwhite omlette (80 calories), 5 oz of veggies like brocoli and cauliflower (which have...50 calories per cup or something, if even), and 6 oz of chicken breast throughout the day (about 250 calories), it sounds like you're not getting enough.
I have heard you need to eat your weight x 10 to get even the maintenance amount of calories you need to function. That seems like a place to start.
If it appears your lose weight when increasing calories it's either (1) you're eating less than you burn but you just don't realize it or (2) natural weight fluctuation.
Starvation mode is a myth as to us ordinary dieters.
Eating 10X your weight to get to maintenance is silly. My weight fluctuates between 140 and 145 lbs, so by your theory my maintenance would be between 1400 and 1450 calories. Just for your information, I would lose big time on that because my maintenance without exercise is approximately 1930 calories.
This happens often when you increase calories due to an increase in energy...when I went to maintenance, by my data and doing the math, it looked like it would be around 2,400 calories and I was all kinds of sad. As I upped calories though, I had more energy...I found that my training improved and I could go harder/longer...I found myself more fidgety...had a hard time sitting still for t.v. shows, movies, sporting events, etc...
My weight loss had slowed to a trickle when I went to maintenance and then as I upped my calories it picked back up again and I lost a few more pounds...I'm pretty sure it was due to the increase in movement that coincided with an increase in calories...I leveled off and put on a few pounds of glycogen weight when I got to around 3,000 calories.
This was who I wrote The Roadmap back in 2012. Groups like Eat More 2 Weigh Less and IPOARM push people to eat the most they can while maintaining weight loss. The higher the quality of food, the higher quality of fat loss.
I love these stories.
I remember the Roadmap ...I started in the fall 2012.
That's what started this Madness.
We used to have a private group with people dedicated to running numbers and macros.
It works though!
How is it madness if it works?
Why do you seem hellbent on creating a dichotomy where there really doesn't need to be one?
I get that you're with PN now, and you like to appeal to your classes in psychology as well for informing your new stance, but for some of us, psychology is exactly why numbers are comforting.
There's room at this whole weight loss table for eyeballers and slice of bread weighers alike.
What concerns me is that you, someone who is supposedly trying to present themselves as a "coach", thinks that there's just one approach that's right. You can seriously sit there with a straight face and say that one size fits all when it comes to this whole deal?
Really?
I think I'd personally prefer to have a coach who recognized that people are coming from different places, are overweight due to different factors, and have different personality types that respond to different approaches.
I'd also appreciate having a coach who didn't feel the need to insult different approaches than his pet one at every turn.
You've actually missed my entire point from waaaay up!
Counting calories, weighing food, assigning points, or hand portion control doesn't matter if the underlying issues aren't fixed.
That's usually the issue right?
Look at serial starters.
They don't fix the underlying issues.
When did insult any approach?
Plenty of ways to lose weight. I'm simply trying to tell people that:
1) don't cut calories too low
2) don't exercise too the extreme
3) fix sleep and stress
99% of my posts over the past 5 years have had the same message.
As a side note, I bend over backwards for my group and retain over 90% of my clients once they've reached their initial goals because of how I coach.
Anyway. Look at my posts both under this name and helloitsdan, and you'll see a common theme.
Don't eat too little, relax, and let the weight loss happen.
"Forest for the trees, forest for the trees"
That's insulting. You are constantly down talking people who are giving detailed information for fine tuning weight loss.
7 -
Try changing up your diet. I had the same issue when I started. Wasn't eating enough for the exercise I was doing. You should eat at least 50% of your exercise calories. Try the Keto diet. It's great for a quick start diet. You eat much more calories but it's all protein and fat. Just reduce ur carbs and eat in the morning. Once u go into ketosis the weight will come off quickly. I don't weigh or measure anything and I lost 10lbs in one week and I started at 175lbs.0
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Dan_Rollins_ACE_PN wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »wanderingartistry wrote: »My friend actually lost when she increased her calorie intake. Not drastically.
Your body may be in starvation mode from too few calories. That doesn't sound like 200 calories to me. Assuming you're making something like a 4 eggwhite omlette (80 calories), 5 oz of veggies like brocoli and cauliflower (which have...50 calories per cup or something, if even), and 6 oz of chicken breast throughout the day (about 250 calories), it sounds like you're not getting enough.
I have heard you need to eat your weight x 10 to get even the maintenance amount of calories you need to function. That seems like a place to start.
If it appears your lose weight when increasing calories it's either (1) you're eating less than you burn but you just don't realize it or (2) natural weight fluctuation.
Starvation mode is a myth as to us ordinary dieters.
Eating 10X your weight to get to maintenance is silly. My weight fluctuates between 140 and 145 lbs, so by your theory my maintenance would be between 1400 and 1450 calories. Just for your information, I would lose big time on that because my maintenance without exercise is approximately 1930 calories.
This happens often when you increase calories due to an increase in energy...when I went to maintenance, by my data and doing the math, it looked like it would be around 2,400 calories and I was all kinds of sad. As I upped calories though, I had more energy...I found that my training improved and I could go harder/longer...I found myself more fidgety...had a hard time sitting still for t.v. shows, movies, sporting events, etc...
My weight loss had slowed to a trickle when I went to maintenance and then as I upped my calories it picked back up again and I lost a few more pounds...I'm pretty sure it was due to the increase in movement that coincided with an increase in calories...I leveled off and put on a few pounds of glycogen weight when I got to around 3,000 calories.
This was who I wrote The Roadmap back in 2012. Groups like Eat More 2 Weigh Less and IPOARM push people to eat the most they can while maintaining weight loss. The higher the quality of food, the higher quality of fat loss.
I love these stories.
I remember the Roadmap ...I started in the fall 2012.
That's what started this Madness.
We used to have a private group with people dedicated to running numbers and macros.
It works though!
How is it madness if it works?
Why do you seem hellbent on creating a dichotomy where there really doesn't need to be one?
I get that you're with PN now, and you like to appeal to your classes in psychology as well for informing your new stance, but for some of us, psychology is exactly why numbers are comforting.
There's room at this whole weight loss table for eyeballers and slice of bread weighers alike.
What concerns me is that you, someone who is supposedly trying to present themselves as a "coach", thinks that there's just one approach that's right. You can seriously sit there with a straight face and say that one size fits all when it comes to this whole deal?
Really?
I think I'd personally prefer to have a coach who recognized that people are coming from different places, are overweight due to different factors, and have different personality types that respond to different approaches.
I'd also appreciate having a coach who didn't feel the need to insult different approaches than his pet one at every turn.
You've actually missed my entire point from waaaay up!
Counting calories, weighing food, assigning points, or hand portion control doesn't matter if the underlying issues aren't fixed.
That's usually the issue right?
Look at serial starters.
They don't fix the underlying issues.
When did insult any approach?
Plenty of ways to lose weight. I'm simply trying to tell people that:
1) don't cut calories too low
2) don't exercise too the extreme
3) fix sleep and stress
99% of my posts over the past 5 years have had the same message.
As a side note, I bend over backwards for my group and retain over 90% of my clients once they've reached their initial goals because of how I coach.
Anyway. Look at my posts both under this name and helloitsdan, and you'll see a common theme.
Don't eat too little, relax, and let the weight loss happen.
"Forest for the trees, forest for the trees"
That's insulting. You are constantly down talking people who are giving detailed information for fine tuning weight loss.
What makes it that way for you?
Most people don't need fine tuning.
When you work with clients with eating disorders and you see similar activity on the forums, you should preach simplicity. And OP I'm in now way insinuating. However the issue isn't how I preach simplicity. The real issue is how people insist that other members must weigh food. It adds an extra element to an already complex change. She just started.
If I had to weigh every morsel going into my mouth, I'd have never lost my weight.
Hey how about this! We all eat approximately the same 15 things per week. How about measuring it out once and seeing what it looks like, then knowing that a certain meal we eat is XYZ calories +/-. I haven't calculated my dinner from last night but I can tell you it's appx 400kcal with just the right macro breakdown.
Here's the real issue. When you add extra habits to someone who's already challenged with changing, their chance of success plummets!
1 habit change is around 80% successful.
2 habit changes is around 30%.
3 is at about 8%.
Then yoyo dieting and fat regain but it's Android so now we're looking at higher blood pressure and heart issues.
I know you'll want to argue with me because you seem to believe I'm coming in here to insult people but understand I'm speaking from a position as a professional with experience in fat loss with general population clients. Some with eating disorders (referred out for therapy) where I have to teach them how to eat without calculating calories and worrying about all the *kitten* minutiae that sends them spiraling.
So for this new person who's been dieting down for two weeks and hasn't seen the results, she just needs to wait. Not add extra things to worry about like the weight of tuna in water or a slice of bread.
TL/DR
Do the least amount of change that offers the most reward.
Fix sleep
Reduce stress
Eat wholesome food
Move more
Everything else is forest for the trees1
This discussion has been closed.
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