Far below TDEE .. Not losing weight

daquix
daquix Posts: 20 Member
edited November 20 in Health and Weight Loss
28 years old.
6 foot tall.
436 pounds.

Everything I eat is weighed with a food scale, down to the gram (except for pre-packaged, 1 serving foods).

Most TDEE calculators I've found have estimated me between 3,500 to 5,000 calculators per day TDEE.

For the past 7 days I have averaged 1,568 calories per day. For the past 14 days, I have averaged 1,355 calories per day.

That is 2,000 to 3,500 calories below TDEE.

Yet after losing my first 20 pounds, I haven't lost since.

Any ideas? Thoughts?

«13

Replies

  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    daquix wrote: »
    28 years old.
    6 foot tall.
    436 pounds.

    Everything I eat is weighed with a food scale, down to the gram (except for pre-packaged, 1 serving foods).

    Most TDEE calculators I've found have estimated me between 3,500 to 5,000 calculators per day TDEE.

    For the past 7 days I have averaged 1,568 calories per day. For the past 14 days, I have averaged 1,355 calories per day.

    That is 2,000 to 3,500 calories below TDEE.

    Yet after losing my first 20 pounds, I haven't lost since.

    Any ideas? Thoughts?

    At what rate was the first 20 lbs? a month, a week,
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,455 Member
    How long is "since"?

    There are many times in weight loss when there will be no losses for a while. It's totally normal. Get your calories back up to 1500-1600. Try to eat mostly lean protein, vegetables, oils/fats and whole grains. Keep doing the next right thing and it will work.

    Patience, grasshopper.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    How long has it been since you've lost weight?
  • daquix
    daquix Posts: 20 Member
    How long has it been since you've lost weight?

    A week.
  • daquix
    daquix Posts: 20 Member
    How long is "since"?

    There are many times in weight loss when there will be no losses for a while. It's totally normal. Get your calories back up to 1500-1600. Try to eat mostly lean protein, vegetables, oils/fats and whole grains. Keep doing the next right thing and it will work.

    Patience, grasshopper.

    Why does it matter what you eat?

    A calorie is a calorie, right?
  • daquix
    daquix Posts: 20 Member
    daquix wrote: »
    28 years old.
    6 foot tall.
    436 pounds.

    Everything I eat is weighed with a food scale, down to the gram (except for pre-packaged, 1 serving foods).

    Most TDEE calculators I've found have estimated me between 3,500 to 5,000 calculators per day TDEE.

    For the past 7 days I have averaged 1,568 calories per day. For the past 14 days, I have averaged 1,355 calories per day.

    That is 2,000 to 3,500 calories below TDEE.

    Yet after losing my first 20 pounds, I haven't lost since.

    Any ideas? Thoughts?

    At what rate was the first 20 lbs? a month, a week,

    Two weeks.

    And a week since.

    I just don't understand what my body is doing with that burned energy that is not turning into weight loss?

    I mean, this physics right?

    If I am eating less than I am burning, how is it possible NOT to lose weight?
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,455 Member
    daquix wrote: »
    How long is "since"?

    There are many times in weight loss when there will be no losses for a while. It's totally normal. Get your calories back up to 1500-1600. Try to eat mostly lean protein, vegetables, oils/fats and whole grains. Keep doing the next right thing and it will work.

    Patience, grasshopper.

    Why does it matter what you eat?

    A calorie is a calorie, right?

    A calorie is a calorie, yes. But it's pretty hard to stick to low calorie and get proper nutrition - that was the point of my post. 1500 calories for a man is the absolute rock-bottom and it's important to be on-point with nutrition to avoid any further health complications, protein being the most important.
  • nexangelus
    nexangelus Posts: 2,080 Member
    edited July 2017
    daquix wrote: »
    daquix wrote: »
    28 years old.
    6 foot tall.
    436 pounds.

    Everything I eat is weighed with a food scale, down to the gram (except for pre-packaged, 1 serving foods).

    Most TDEE calculators I've found have estimated me between 3,500 to 5,000 calculators per day TDEE.

    For the past 7 days I have averaged 1,568 calories per day. For the past 14 days, I have averaged 1,355 calories per day.

    That is 2,000 to 3,500 calories below TDEE.

    Yet after losing my first 20 pounds, I haven't lost since.

    Any ideas? Thoughts?

    At what rate was the first 20 lbs? a month, a week,

    Two weeks.

    And a week since.

    I just don't understand what my body is doing with that burned energy that is not turning into weight loss?

    I mean, this physics right?

    If I am eating less than I am burning, how is it possible NOT to lose weight?

    Can we all chime in with the weightloss is not linear line yet again? Cos it isn't. You need to be reading some Lyle McDonald...plus water retention plays havoc with the scale. Suddenly you will register quite a few pounds weight loss after this plateau mark my words....

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/not-losing-fat-at-20-deficit-what-should-i-do-qa.html

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/of-whooshes-and-squishy-fat.html/

    Plus I would lessen that gaping deficit. 20lbs in two weeks and then no loss, no wonder! You could be eating 500 more calories and still lose at a steady rate...there are more really good reads on that website I linked...take a gander...
  • Clawsal
    Clawsal Posts: 255 Member
    edited July 2017
    It doesn't matter what you eat for fat loss... what matters is calorie deficit. However what you eat can have an influence on your weight on the short term, so if this week you have eaten food that has more salt, or alcohol or anything that causes your body to retain more water, it may have masked your weight loss.

    Also, to lose 20 pounds of fat in 14 days you would need a 5000 calorie deficit a day, which clearly isn't the case.

    So what I think happened: the first two weeks you lost a lot of weight, which included fat, water weight and "waste" weight. That third week your weight stayed the same: you were eating at a deficit so you lost fat, but for whatever reason you gained some water weight that masked the fat loss. Have patience and check your weight next week. At any rate don't expect to lose 10 pounds a week.
  • animatorswearbras
    animatorswearbras Posts: 1,001 Member
    Some of that first 20 pounds may have been water weight which you have retained more of as your body readjusts you will have lost fat this week but put some of that water back on, as the poster above says 20 pounds over 21 days is nearly 3500 calorie deficit a day which is the very top end of your TDEE based on your intake, you shouldn't expect to lose more than that. Remember that water weight both exaggerates and masks loss but will even out and maybe slow a bit after a month. Good luck and well done on the loss so far.
  • daquix
    daquix Posts: 20 Member
    daquix wrote: »
    How long is "since"?

    There are many times in weight loss when there will be no losses for a while. It's totally normal. Get your calories back up to 1500-1600. Try to eat mostly lean protein, vegetables, oils/fats and whole grains. Keep doing the next right thing and it will work.

    Patience, grasshopper.

    Why does it matter what you eat?

    A calorie is a calorie, right?

    A calorie is a calorie, yes. But it's pretty hard to stick to low calorie and get proper nutrition - that was the point of my post. 1500 calories for a man is the absolute rock-bottom and it's important to be on-point with nutrition to avoid any further health complications, protein being the most important.

    Gotcha.

    Just making sure I understood.
  • daquix
    daquix Posts: 20 Member
    daquix wrote: »
    daquix wrote: »
    28 years old.
    6 foot tall.
    436 pounds.

    Everything I eat is weighed with a food scale, down to the gram (except for pre-packaged, 1 serving foods).

    Most TDEE calculators I've found have estimated me between 3,500 to 5,000 calculators per day TDEE.

    For the past 7 days I have averaged 1,568 calories per day. For the past 14 days, I have averaged 1,355 calories per day.

    That is 2,000 to 3,500 calories below TDEE.

    Yet after losing my first 20 pounds, I haven't lost since.

    Any ideas? Thoughts?

    At what rate was the first 20 lbs? a month, a week,

    Two weeks.

    And a week since.

    I just don't understand what my body is doing with that burned energy that is not turning into weight loss?

    I mean, this physics right?

    If I am eating less than I am burning, how is it possible NOT to lose weight?
    erickirb wrote: »
    so 20 lbs in 3 weeks that is an average of almost 7 lbs a week (or an average daily deficit of 3500), some of the initial loss was probably water that you gained back in the third week which is masking your "real" loss this week.

    You will have to keep in mind that weight loss is not linear and that you will not be able to sustain a daily deficit of 3500 cals for long. I would suggest a deficit of 1000 to 1500/ day given how much you have to lose (1500/day would be an average of 3lb/week loss)

    If you expect to continue losing at a rate of 10 pounds per week you're going to be disappointed, and if you succeed you're going to be very unhealthy along the way.

    Fat losses can be nearly linear while "weight loss is never linear"

    Water fluctuations due to activity or salts or protein can cause weight to go up, down, or sideways. With 200+ lbs to go, you've got some slack and flex as far as how quickly you come out of the gate, but remember it's a long haul and you're going to need to sustain it, and probably at some point 6 or 8 months down the line take a break to let your hormones reset.

    Definitely don't expect 10 pounds per week.

    But when I am 24,000 calories BELOW tdee, I would expect *something*. A pound maybe?

    ya know?
  • daquix
    daquix Posts: 20 Member
    nexangelus wrote: »
    daquix wrote: »
    daquix wrote: »
    28 years old.
    6 foot tall.
    436 pounds.

    Everything I eat is weighed with a food scale, down to the gram (except for pre-packaged, 1 serving foods).

    Most TDEE calculators I've found have estimated me between 3,500 to 5,000 calculators per day TDEE.

    For the past 7 days I have averaged 1,568 calories per day. For the past 14 days, I have averaged 1,355 calories per day.

    That is 2,000 to 3,500 calories below TDEE.

    Yet after losing my first 20 pounds, I haven't lost since.

    Any ideas? Thoughts?

    At what rate was the first 20 lbs? a month, a week,

    Two weeks.

    And a week since.

    I just don't understand what my body is doing with that burned energy that is not turning into weight loss?

    I mean, this physics right?

    If I am eating less than I am burning, how is it possible NOT to lose weight?

    Can we all chime in with the weightloss is not linear line yet again? Cos it isn't. You need to be reading some Lyle McDonald...plus water retention plays havoc with the scale. Suddenly you will register quite a few pounds weight loss after this plateau mark my words....

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/not-losing-fat-at-20-deficit-what-should-i-do-qa.html

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/of-whooshes-and-squishy-fat.html/

    Plus I would lessen that gaping deficit. 20lbs in two weeks and then no loss, no wonder! You could be eating 500 more calories and still lose at a steady rate...there are more really good reads on that website I linked...take a gander...

    I recently started reading Lyle!

    Great blog he has.

    One of his posts he actually says that super obese people should NOT see as much of a stall as their thinner counterparts. Thats part of the reason why I became worried.
  • rheddmobile
    rheddmobile Posts: 6,840 Member
    As others have said, the problem is most likely that you did not actually lose 20 lbs of fat in the first two weeks. You lost some fat, and mostly water, which gets flushed out of your digestive system when you stop eating as much, out of your circulatory system when you consume less sodium, and out of your muscles when you use up glycogen without replenishing it. These things happened suddenly when you made sudden changes, which is typical in any diet - many people lose several pounds of water weight in the first week. Then your body started to adjust to the new normal and the water weight came back. You are probably continuing to lose fat, it's just going to take a while for the number on the scale to catch up to the water weight.

    Carry on, be patient, and best of luck to you.
  • daquix
    daquix Posts: 20 Member
    daquix wrote: »
    daquix wrote: »
    daquix wrote: »
    28 years old.
    6 foot tall.
    436 pounds.

    Everything I eat is weighed with a food scale, down to the gram (except for pre-packaged, 1 serving foods).

    Most TDEE calculators I've found have estimated me between 3,500 to 5,000 calculators per day TDEE.

    For the past 7 days I have averaged 1,568 calories per day. For the past 14 days, I have averaged 1,355 calories per day.

    That is 2,000 to 3,500 calories below TDEE.

    Yet after losing my first 20 pounds, I haven't lost since.

    Any ideas? Thoughts?

    At what rate was the first 20 lbs? a month, a week,

    Two weeks.

    And a week since.

    I just don't understand what my body is doing with that burned energy that is not turning into weight loss?

    I mean, this physics right?

    If I am eating less than I am burning, how is it possible NOT to lose weight?
    erickirb wrote: »
    so 20 lbs in 3 weeks that is an average of almost 7 lbs a week (or an average daily deficit of 3500), some of the initial loss was probably water that you gained back in the third week which is masking your "real" loss this week.

    You will have to keep in mind that weight loss is not linear and that you will not be able to sustain a daily deficit of 3500 cals for long. I would suggest a deficit of 1000 to 1500/ day given how much you have to lose (1500/day would be an average of 3lb/week loss)

    If you expect to continue losing at a rate of 10 pounds per week you're going to be disappointed, and if you succeed you're going to be very unhealthy along the way.

    Fat losses can be nearly linear while "weight loss is never linear"

    Water fluctuations due to activity or salts or protein can cause weight to go up, down, or sideways. With 200+ lbs to go, you've got some slack and flex as far as how quickly you come out of the gate, but remember it's a long haul and you're going to need to sustain it, and probably at some point 6 or 8 months down the line take a break to let your hormones reset.

    Definitely don't expect 10 pounds per week.

    But when I am 24,000 calories BELOW tdee, I would expect *something*. A pound maybe?

    ya know?

    Considering that you lost 20 pounds the previous 2 weeks, your body is going to react. and since you weigh 400+ lbs. 10 lbs as a swing is within what would be considered a normal daily range. At 240, 5-6 lbs is just normal fluctuations from salts/hydration/protein/carbs. at 400, that could be as much as 15 lbs.

    Gotcha.

    "Swings" refer to the water weight you keep, right?
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    daquix wrote: »
    daquix wrote: »
    daquix wrote: »
    daquix wrote: »
    28 years old.
    6 foot tall.
    436 pounds.

    Everything I eat is weighed with a food scale, down to the gram (except for pre-packaged, 1 serving foods).

    Most TDEE calculators I've found have estimated me between 3,500 to 5,000 calculators per day TDEE.

    For the past 7 days I have averaged 1,568 calories per day. For the past 14 days, I have averaged 1,355 calories per day.

    That is 2,000 to 3,500 calories below TDEE.

    Yet after losing my first 20 pounds, I haven't lost since.

    Any ideas? Thoughts?

    At what rate was the first 20 lbs? a month, a week,

    Two weeks.

    And a week since.

    I just don't understand what my body is doing with that burned energy that is not turning into weight loss?

    I mean, this physics right?

    If I am eating less than I am burning, how is it possible NOT to lose weight?
    erickirb wrote: »
    so 20 lbs in 3 weeks that is an average of almost 7 lbs a week (or an average daily deficit of 3500), some of the initial loss was probably water that you gained back in the third week which is masking your "real" loss this week.

    You will have to keep in mind that weight loss is not linear and that you will not be able to sustain a daily deficit of 3500 cals for long. I would suggest a deficit of 1000 to 1500/ day given how much you have to lose (1500/day would be an average of 3lb/week loss)

    If you expect to continue losing at a rate of 10 pounds per week you're going to be disappointed, and if you succeed you're going to be very unhealthy along the way.

    Fat losses can be nearly linear while "weight loss is never linear"

    Water fluctuations due to activity or salts or protein can cause weight to go up, down, or sideways. With 200+ lbs to go, you've got some slack and flex as far as how quickly you come out of the gate, but remember it's a long haul and you're going to need to sustain it, and probably at some point 6 or 8 months down the line take a break to let your hormones reset.

    Definitely don't expect 10 pounds per week.

    But when I am 24,000 calories BELOW tdee, I would expect *something*. A pound maybe?

    ya know?

    Considering that you lost 20 pounds the previous 2 weeks, your body is going to react. and since you weigh 400+ lbs. 10 lbs as a swing is within what would be considered a normal daily range. At 240, 5-6 lbs is just normal fluctuations from salts/hydration/protein/carbs. at 400, that could be as much as 15 lbs.

    Gotcha.

    "Swings" refer to the water weight you keep, right?

    Yes, water weight, and the distribution of it. Muscular vs dietary vs fat vs blood volume
  • daquix
    daquix Posts: 20 Member
    As others have said, the problem is most likely that you did not actually lose 20 lbs of fat in the first two weeks. You lost some fat, and mostly water, which gets flushed out of your digestive system when you stop eating as much, out of your circulatory system when you consume less sodium, and out of your muscles when you use up glycogen without replenishing it. These things happened suddenly when you made sudden changes, which is typical in any diet - many people lose several pounds of water weight in the first week. Then your body started to adjust to the new normal and the water weight came back. You are probably continuing to lose fat, it's just going to take a while for the number on the scale to catch up to the water weight.

    Carry on, be patient, and best of luck to you.

    That does make sense.
  • Rhayemun
    Rhayemun Posts: 31 Member
    edited July 2017
    try2again wrote: »
    Please consider this post:

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10569458/why-eating-too-little-calories-is-a-bad-idea/p1

    A week of no weight loss is normal. While a larger person can support a rate of loss of more than 2 lbs a week, you are severely, and unnecessarily, undereating. Please reconsider. :)

    I disagree with "severely, and unnecessarily, undereating." He is over 400 pounds. That is life threatening. The thread about "eating too little calories" - that doesn't really apply to someone who is this much over-weight.

    Context.

    It absolutely does!! It doesn't matter if you're 600, 400 or 200lbs starvation is NOT the answer. Proper nutrition and exercise is. A 500lb person can become very sick from malnutrition. Your organs can refuse to function. He's 6ft tall. He certainly should NOT be eating below 1600 calories a day and even then his calories need to be very rigid and focused to give his body what it needs. It's not all about macros. Fiber, vitamins and minerals are an important part of proper nutrition. The best way to give your body what it needs is to eat appropriately and with focus. Calorie King estimate 1900-2100 for a sedentary person with these stats.

    http://www.calorieking.com/interactive-tools/how-many-calories-should-you-eat/?ref=nav

  • try2again
    try2again Posts: 3,562 Member
    try2again wrote: »
    Please consider this post:

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10569458/why-eating-too-little-calories-is-a-bad-idea/p1

    A week of no weight loss is normal. While a larger person can support a rate of loss of more than 2 lbs a week, you are severely, and unnecessarily, undereating. Please reconsider. :)

    I disagree with "severely, and unnecessarily, undereating." He is over 400 pounds. That is life threatening. The thread about "eating too little calories" - that doesn't really apply to someone who is this much over-weight.

    Context.

    Yes, his weight is life threatening. But he would still be losing at a hefty rate eating 2000 calories, and wouldn't be creating additional stress for himself in what is already a difficult process. Averaging 1355 *is* unnecessary and below the minimum level recommended for men. Unless he is being medically supervised, it's not wise.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    try2again wrote: »
    try2again wrote: »
    Please consider this post:

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10569458/why-eating-too-little-calories-is-a-bad-idea/p1

    A week of no weight loss is normal. While a larger person can support a rate of loss of more than 2 lbs a week, you are severely, and unnecessarily, undereating. Please reconsider. :)

    I disagree with "severely, and unnecessarily, undereating." He is over 400 pounds. That is life threatening. The thread about "eating too little calories" - that doesn't really apply to someone who is this much over-weight.

    Context.

    Yes, his weight is life threatening. But he would still be losing at a hefty rate eating 2000 calories, and wouldn't be creating additional stress for himself in what is already a difficult process. Averaging 1355 *is* unnecessary and below the minimum level recommended for men. Unless he is being medically supervised, it's not wise.

    And he's pushed his calories up to 1560+
  • daquix
    daquix Posts: 20 Member
    Really wish the body was more of a machine.

    Predictable weight loss.
This discussion has been closed.