Sort of Starting all over...unbrainwash me please

Well thyroid conditions are one of the things that directly affect weight loss
You might need to see a doctor about that.

If you aren't losing at 1744 then go to 1644. But, you need to weigh foods and be as accurate as you can. Don't eat back your walking calories. You might have to tweak it a little but the 1744 is a good start and you'll have to do it rigorously. No more of "spacing out lean clean days with a few cheat days". That isn't going to work anymore.

Pinupdollrawr wrote: »

There are several machines that can measure rmr. Otherwise scientific studies that prove or disprove certain weight loss fat loss methods would not be known. My job is to complete and average of 20,000+ steps within my work schedule of 8 hours while pushing humans and objects. I do transport throughout an army hospital mainly patients on Gurney's or wheelchairs alone. My average step count which does include up and down stairs is 20,000 on a slow day it will be 15,000 steps 5 days a week.

This would make you TDEE higher than 2200. Something isn't adding up.

My point about the machine is that it measures RMR, it can't tell you what you need to maintain or lose beyond that because of individual activity. Where did the additional 500 come from? 500 calories for an average of 20'000 steps seems a bit low.

Something isn't adding up here. If your thyroid is now under control there's no reason for you to not be losing if logging accurately and consistently.

You sound like someone who knows what you're doing but I do have to ask: are you measuring your portions, or are you eyeballing them? When you describe your past experience with weight loss it sounds like you did okay just guesstimating. But if you have developed an endocrinological problem, I'd suggest that you might benefit from a few weeks at least of measuring pretty strictly just to get a truly accurate handle on what your current calorie intake really is. For healthy and very active people miscounting calories by a couple of hundred here or there might not make a big difference, but once your burn rate gets out of whack based on hormones, you might need to re-measure in order to accurately re-calibrate? It's so easy to be off by quite a lot, even with good intentions. Lots of people on here saying they KNOW they're eating 1600 cal /day or something but basing that on eyeball measurements. And it turns out that that 1 cup of fruit was really 2 cups, that 1 tbsp of peanut butter was really 3, that 3 oz serving of meat was really 10 (!), 1/4 cup of oatmeal that they logged was really 1/2 cup or more, and it adds up.

Also, when I hear your doctors advising eating 900 calories a day I have to say this. Anyone -- including your doctor or endocrinologist -- who tells you how many calories you need to lose weight, I think you should respond back with a "can you refer me to an accredited dietician?" Bottom line: medical advice is critical for medical issues, but just because someone is a doctor doesn't mean they know much AT ALL about nutrition and diet, sadly. Get a referral to an accredited dietician, and in your case, ask for someone who has experience dealing with clients with endocrine problems.

FWIW my PCP told me his first job out of med school was actually with a weight loss clinic and he was the first to tell me that he didn't trust his own nutritional advice, let alone other doctors'. Doctors just aren't required to know much of anything beyond the very basics about diet and weight loss (it's like the equivalent to one class for half a semester in med school, a lot of it really biochemistry to help them understand other stuff, not really practical weight management info). And sadly, what many doctors DO know about it is often colored by clinical practice of helping patients do otherwise unhealthy weight loss to prepare for important surgery (i.e., shed some subcutaneous fat fast so it's easier and safer for a surgeon to cut into them for any reason). Which means doctors often know something about VLC diets (i.e., diets of 900 or <1200 calories / day) but don't seem to remember that those are basically supposed to be for short-term "emergency" health reasons only, not general weight loss or long-term weight management.

Good luck!

VintageFeline wrote: »

For women I generally recommend 4-6 weeks. I can see nothing on the scale for that long then have a big whoosh. If I reassessed after just two weeks I'd probably have cut way way too hard often.

That's a great point, and I think you're right. 4-6 weeks is definitely better, and I know that it personally took me a few weeks and a food scale to start seeing good results.