Beyond frustration
Replies
-
jesshali119 wrote: »Also changing the type of Exercise you do maybe something to think about . Muscles burn more calories then fat. Maybe doing more weights then cardio and spin class would be a better solution for your situation. Give it a try for a couple of months see where you stand with your weight goal after that. Good luck
I actually did PHUL for a few months last year and that's what I'm saying it didn't make any change in muscle. I am doing upper body weight training 3x week now, though.
A few months is a drop in the bucket. Long term progressive overload is where you will see change.
Doing an upper body only routine seems like a waste of time.1 -
What's the plan if she ever injures herself? Or when she turns 55?
I don't know what her plan is for potential injury (?), but my plan when I became very sick (permanently) was to do what had worked before: I had to reduce my calories. I can walk, I can work out (in certain ways) but those all have had to be modified. It wasn't a "plan" per se but it was what I had to do. Many, many people deal with getting sick. It's a fact of life. It's not fun and we all have to find our own way. Nobody ever "plans" on getting sick...we all just deal with it if it comes, in all ways, including, I guess, weight loss, though depending upon this hypothetical injury or illness she may be more concerned at the outset with healing if at all possible, than with being thinner.
As far as turning 55: I don't know. I'm only 50. I didn't have a plan for that either, per se, except to reach it, since the alternative seemed unappealing. As far as how it related/relates to weight loss, I dunno. See my paragraph #1, directly above this one.
I will let you know in 4.75 years what my new plan is for when I'm 55. But I'm no fool and apparently I am no slow learner as I can glean, with my awesome powers of reasoning, that the same thing (indeed, the only thing) that's worked for me for the past 50.25 years, will continue to be, well, the thing that works.
Now...with all that said, you're right. The OP isn't having fun. And that's really, really hard. I get that and she can and possibly should take a diet break (I'm doing the same) but if what she's asking is how to keep losing the diet break probably isn't it. If instead what she's asking is how to psychologically just get a break and find life pleasurable again in this way, yes, a diet break could be exactly the ticket and I'd for sure be behind that. I think it's a good idea.
2 -
Great insights and suggestions!1
-
Now...with all that said, you're right. The OP isn't having fun. And that's really, really hard. I get that and she can and possibly should take a diet break (I'm doing the same) but if what she's asking is how to keep losing the diet break probably isn't it. If instead what she's asking is how to psychologically just get a break and find life pleasurable again in this way, yes, a diet break could be exactly the ticket and I'd for sure be behind that. I think it's a good idea.
The idea is that after a diet break and slight rectification of hormones you a) may get rid of some water weight due to cortisol rectification and b) regain some of your depressed NEAT. At that point you can go back to a deficit from a higher start point than you were right before the diet break.
The exact time that it takes for all the above to happen... is open to argument and interpretation and is not clear cut. From a few days to a few months to never = not until you've regained all your original weight + 10%. Obviously the last one is not our target result ;-)
In any case the lesser depression of NEAT (that was observed once body composition changes were taken into account) was the mechanism discussed in the recent MATADOR study: "Greater weight and fat loss was achieved with intermittent E(nergy) R(estriction). Interrupting ER with energy balance 'rest periods' may reduce compensatory metabolic responses and, in turn, improve weight loss efficiency"
I am unabashedly stealing @anubis609 's concluding paragraph from a post of his in the "refeed thread" a few minutes ago: "control shouldn't be so restrictive that you break, and freedom shouldn't be so uninhibited that you end up doing more harm than good. This is where "flexibility" and "moderation" lie: controlled freedom and practiced within reason."5 -
jesshali119 wrote: »lucerorojo wrote: »How much do you weigh and height? You look normal size in the photo. Age isn't it. I'm 52 and so far I've lost 28 lbs. since July--however I also have 72 to go, and the heavier you are above normal, the faster/easier the weight comes off since there is so much extra fat stored and a calorie deficit is easier to achieve. When I first started on MFP, I was shocked to see how many calories I was eating, probably over 3,000 per day, so to cut back even to 2000 would have had me losing some weight, with a small deficit. My TDEE is about 2300 or something like that.
In your photo, if that's current, you look like you don't need to lose anything, IMO.
I'm 29 years old, 5'3" and 165lbs. Three or four (it's a blur) years ago I went from 212 to where I am now and that was from only cardio and barely eating. Yes, I have a lot of fat and weight to lose. I am not happy with where I am.
What has stuck out to me in this conversation is that the OP lost over 50 lbs. by "from only cardio and barely eating). It sounds like OP did some extreme dieting to get to 165. On MFP there is no such thing as "starvation mode" but what could have happened to her losing the 50 lbs. that makes her body not react to either eating more or less? It's bizarre that she did not gain or lose in the months that she rotated her calories from 1200-2000. But considering her youth and her exercise regimen which is pretty active--those spin classes are not easy or low intensity, is she just constantly in some kind of deficit which is why she doesn't gain? I can understand her frustration. Or it is over a year of water retention from a large deficit/stress response?5 -
OP, are you sure you never lost at all?
Or did you bounce back and forth within a few pounds and basically make no progress.
I said I didn't make progress for years when in reality, once I looked at it, I just yo-yo'd but never made it past a point that felt like I was losing weight.4 -
lucerorojo wrote: »
What has stuck out to me in this conversation is that the OP lost over 50 lbs. by "from only cardio and barely eating). It sounds like OP did some extreme dieting to get to 165. On MFP there is no such thing as "starvation mode" but what could have happened to her losing the 50 lbs. that makes her body not react to either eating more or less? It's bizarre that she did not gain or lose in the months that she rotated her calories from 1200-2000. But considering her youth and her exercise regimen which is pretty active--those spin classes are not easy or low intensity, is she just constantly in some kind of deficit which is why she doesn't gain? I can understand her frustration. Or it is over a year of water retention from a large deficit/stress response?
See now, this is the one part I do find explainable (the italicized, above). She was undereating at 1200, overeating at 2000 (not those exact cutoffs, but leading up to/away from) and so it balanced out to maintenance.1 -
I guess I don't get it. What I understood was that she ate 1200 calories for a couple of months and 2000 calories in a different month. If that was all mixed in, yes, then it would balance out to maintenance. But if 2 months on 1200 calories she can't be maintaining with all that exercise especially--even if her logging was not that precise.
2 -
The issue @LAWoman72 is not that you can't lose weight by reducing calories even more; but, that (after a prolonged period at a deficit, especially if you're not over-fat)*, you start getting a considerable number of hormonal adaptations designed to SLOW DOWN the fat loss you experience. [*start time may vary: the steeper the deficit and the leaner the individual the harder the reaction, usually. Usual term is adaptive thermogenesis. Exercise muscle efficiency plays a role too in reducing the caloric load of exercise. -- see further below about cortisol and water weight as discussed in the refeed thread]
For some people these are enough to "disappear" the deficit they believe they are creating; for others they are only enough to make it smaller. In all cases you can kick your deficit up a notch and seek an even more restrictive regiment--up to and including the passing out you (and other MFPeops) have experienced.
Furthermore, the whole thing can be exacerbated because of water weight variation and water retention either due to stress or the whole host of other reasons because of which people retain water.
Let's face it, as an overweight male with no TOM water retention I still had more than a couple of months where my ending monthly weight was higher than my starting weight, yet I was still losing at an average of 0.5lbs a week, or better.
Without a trending weight app I would have been convinced I was gaining tons of weight at what ought to have been a deficit and I would have been likely to go off the rails in disgust, or counter-productively stress myself with extra exercise.
I note that the refeed thread is mostly looking at water weight being retained because of cortisol while fat loss has continued and is not viewing the hormonal response as adaptive thermogenesis.
I am on the a bit of both are taking place at the same time camp ;-)
It is easy for me to bet that if the OP quits all exercise other than maybe going for a walk for an hour a day or so and eats at ~ maintenance for an active woman of her size she will drop scale weight within a couple of weeks. Easy for me to bet... because no skin off my back if I'm wrong.
However, to address the OP's easy to understand fear of regain I can only bring to her attention HER OWN words that she didn't gain weight while eating for more than a month at 2200 Cal.
And I also bring up to her that even if we accept the extremely unlikely situation that her permanent TDEE is 1500 Cal a day, eating at 2000 would have her gain no more than 1lb of fat a week. Which means that any variation of more than that IS water weight.
At the end of the day the OP has to find some form of setup that she can carry on long term. if she thinks that she can carry on with her current way of life and reduce below 1500 with all the exercise she does more the power to her... and I hope she has good health insurance.
Personally I would prefer to gamble a few lbs in the hope that I would actually be able to eat more and exercise less while still enjoying reasonably good results.
There are enough hints in what the OP has said to indicate that she is not currently having a great time, and that her current relationship with food and exercise is not ideal... improving that may be worth the price of a few lbs all by itself.
What's the plan if she ever injures herself? Or when she turns 55?
Hmmm, I don't think that's our intention, certainly not mine! There are a one or people with particular water weight issues, so there was a fair bit of discussion around that. Pretty sure we all agree (or at least I do) that fat loss slows in a deficit too, a la adaptive thermogenesis. Maybe because we all accept it, we haven't discussed it that much. Go discuss it @PAV8888! It's definitely not all down to jacked up cortisol, but the combo of slowed fat loss combined with water retention from cortisol (and/or other things) can provide that lethal combination to make it look like you're not losing weight/fat at all. Raised cortisol is part of adaptive thermogenesis, but can be made worse by things like too much cardio and too big a deficit. Anyway, pretty sure we actually agree
2 -
jesshali119 wrote: »Hmmm... Maybe there are hidden calories that you aren't logging? For the soup, are you using the recipe builder? Are you logging any cooking oils you might be using in roasting your vegetables? Do you have cheat meals that could be wiping out any deficit you have? Because eating 2200 and then eating 1200 averages out to 1,700, which could be kind of close to maintenance, especially for someone who is 5'3".
I weigh the oil out before putting everything together, though it's barely any oil. It sucks but I'm doing it without. I don't have "cheat meals" but I do have what I want for dinner as long as I stay in range of what calories I think I should be in. And to clarify, i meant like, I did 3 months at 1200 calories then 2 months at a higher amount. I wouldnt change it daily or weekly.
What does this mean? Do you just eat dinner but not track as closely? Or just eat what you think is a good amount?
4 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Hmmm, I don't think that's our intention, certainly not mine! There are a one or people with particular water weight issues, so there was a fair bit of discussion around that. Pretty sure we all agree (or at least I do) that fat loss slows in a deficit too, a la adaptive thermogenesis. Maybe because we all accept it, we haven't discussed it that much. Go discuss it @PAV8888! It's definitely not all down to jacked up cortisol, but the combo of slowed fat loss combined with water retention from cortisol (and/or other things) can provide that lethal combination to make it look like you're not losing weight/fat at all. Raised cortisol is part of adaptive thermogenesis, but can be made worse by things like too much cardio and too big a deficit. Anyway, pretty sure we actually agree
Sounds like we are on different days, on two continents, and of one mind!
To my admittedly few, so far, woo friends who believe that the answer to continued weight loss ALWAYS boils down to the creation of a larger (actual) deficit I say: just because you COULD lose weight that way doesn’t mean you SHOULD lose weight that way. Ultimately it may be worth your while to risk exploring alternatives!6 -
You say you log every calorie and someone mentioned you use a paper/pen. Use the MFP database and log online for 1 month and see what happens.1
-
Ah I missed where she said that. I need to read slower.
With that being said, OP, we can't see how much you are eating. When you say you are eating 1,200 to 2,200, is that a weekly average or each day?
The reason I ask is because one day I may eat 2,700, but the next only 1,200. I look at my weekly average and it comes out to be about 1,800-1,900. I wonder if that is what is occurring with you. You may fluctuate how many calories you eat each day but weekly you are averaging your TDEE.
It sounded like she was doing one month 1200, the next month 2200, etc. this makes sense because they usually say to eat at maintenance to get your metabolism back up if you're at a plateau.1 -
You say you log every calorie and someone mentioned you use a paper/pen. Use the MFP database and log online for 1 month and see what happens.
I agree. I get the obsessing thing but I would spend way more time obsessing with paper and pen because the amount of math needed for a recipe would drive me crazy. The app makes it so easy and the math is always right as long as you’re picking the right entries.
I also think a diet break is a good idea, but maybe when that’s over try logging online.
1 -
It may simply be a problem of being "skinny fat." You look like you've built up your arms quite a bit, but what about the rest of your body? Not having enough muscle is going to make you look like you need to lose weight no matter what you weigh. Try doing very heavy, intense weight exercises on all parts of your body and see if that helps, but don't forget to take days off exercising too. You may not be getting enough protein to see any difference in your muscle tone either-- try eating at least 85% of your body weight in pounds in grams of protein and see if that helps you build more muscle. Cutting carbs may also help you ditch any bloat you have-- you'd be surprised how much skinnier you can look when you do that. Once you get down to a certain weight, there is basically nothing you can do except go keto with a trainer and insanely intense workouts. You say you were "barely eating" while doing lots of cardio and it sounds like you may have already tried eating at maintenance for a month to break your stall? You may have permanently trashed your metabolism-- not sure if that's possible, but it could be. Either way, I think you don't look like you need to lose weight, and once you get down to a certain point that's your natural weight, your body will do everything it can to prevent you from losing weight. Also realize that some looks are only achievable if you have a certain build-- some people put on muscle/lose fat easily, others don't. Some look skinnier because they have big bones/are taller or carry their weight in different areas. My friend and I are both a size 5, but we look drastically different. Be the best YOU can be, not what someone else might be able to be.3
-
The issue @LAWoman72 is not that you can't lose weight by reducing calories even more; but, that (after a prolonged period at a deficit, especially if you're not over-fat)*, you start getting a considerable number of hormonal adaptations designed to SLOW DOWN the fat loss you experience. [*start time may vary: the steeper the deficit and the leaner the individual the harder the reaction, usually. Usual term is adaptive thermogenesis. Exercise muscle efficiency plays a role too in reducing the caloric load of exercise. -- see further below about cortisol and water weight as discussed in the refeed thread]
For some people these are enough to "disappear" the deficit they believe they are creating; for others they are only enough to make it smaller. In all cases you can kick your deficit up a notch and seek an even more restrictive regiment--up to and including the passing out you (and other MFPeops) have experienced.
Furthermore, the whole thing can be exacerbated because of water weight variation and water retention either due to stress or the whole host of other reasons because of which people retain water.
Let's face it, as an overweight male with no TOM water retention I still had more than a couple of months where my ending monthly weight was higher than my starting weight, yet I was still losing at an average of 0.5lbs a week, or better.
Without a trending weight app I would have been convinced I was gaining tons of weight at what ought to have been a deficit and I would have been likely to go off the rails in disgust, or counter-productively stress myself with extra exercise.
I note that the refeed thread is mostly looking at water weight being retained because of cortisol while fat loss has continued and is not viewing the hormonal response as adaptive thermogenesis.
I am on the a bit of both are taking place at the same time camp ;-)
It is easy for me to bet that if the OP quits all exercise other than maybe going for a walk for an hour a day or so and eats at ~ maintenance for an active woman of her size she will drop scale weight within a couple of weeks. Easy for me to bet... because no skin off my back if I'm wrong.
However, to address the OP's easy to understand fear of regain I can only bring to her attention HER OWN words that she didn't gain weight while eating for more than a month at 2200 Cal.
And I also bring up to her that even if we accept the extremely unlikely situation that her permanent TDEE is 1500 Cal a day, eating at 2000 would have her gain no more than 1lb of fat a week. Which means that any variation of more than that IS water weight.
At the end of the day the OP has to find some form of setup that she can carry on long term. if she thinks that she can carry on with her current way of life and reduce below 1500 with all the exercise she does more the power to her... and I hope she has good health insurance.
Personally I would prefer to gamble a few lbs in the hope that I would actually be able to eat more and exercise less while still enjoying reasonably good results.
There are enough hints in what the OP has said to indicate that she is not currently having a great time, and that her current relationship with food and exercise is not ideal... improving that may be worth the price of a few lbs all by itself.
What's the plan if she ever injures herself? Or when she turns 55?
1. Why the good health insurance comment?
2. It's just that it's difficult to find where I should be at to get results. The whole main point is I'm confused why I'm not losing below TDEE or gaining over maintenance.
3. What would it matter if I get injured? It's not likely in way of exercise or diet unless you're talking about something that would put me out of commission such as a car accident or something. What you meant isn't clear to me.1 -
OP, are you sure you never lost at all?
Or did you bounce back and forth within a few pounds and basically make no progress.
I said I didn't make progress for years when in reality, once I looked at it, I just yo-yo'd but never made it past a point that felt like I was losing weight.
In the morning I would weigh less than I did at night, but the next morning its back to what it was the last morning. If I weighed myself on a monday, the next monday it would be the same number.0 -
lucerorojo wrote: »jesshali119 wrote: »lucerorojo wrote: »How much do you weigh and height? You look normal size in the photo. Age isn't it. I'm 52 and so far I've lost 28 lbs. since July--however I also have 72 to go, and the heavier you are above normal, the faster/easier the weight comes off since there is so much extra fat stored and a calorie deficit is easier to achieve. When I first started on MFP, I was shocked to see how many calories I was eating, probably over 3,000 per day, so to cut back even to 2000 would have had me losing some weight, with a small deficit. My TDEE is about 2300 or something like that.
In your photo, if that's current, you look like you don't need to lose anything, IMO.
I'm 29 years old, 5'3" and 165lbs. Three or four (it's a blur) years ago I went from 212 to where I am now and that was from only cardio and barely eating. Yes, I have a lot of fat and weight to lose. I am not happy with where I am.
What has stuck out to me in this conversation is that the OP lost over 50 lbs. by "from only cardio and barely eating). It sounds like OP did some extreme dieting to get to 165. On MFP there is no such thing as "starvation mode" but what could have happened to her losing the 50 lbs. that makes her body not react to either eating more or less? It's bizarre that she did not gain or lose in the months that she rotated her calories from 1200-2000. But considering her youth and her exercise regimen which is pretty active--those spin classes are not easy or low intensity, is she just constantly in some kind of deficit which is why she doesn't gain? I can understand her frustration. Or it is over a year of water retention from a large deficit/stress response?
I was being a little dramatic, barely eating to me would be 1000-1200. I was not craving food in that period, I was not starving myself by way of having hunger. BUT YES, this is what I'm trying to figure out. If and could I have *kitten* up my body somehow during that time. I made amazing progress and then no matter what it came to a halt. Even with doing a weight training program.0 -
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »jesshali119 wrote: »Hmmm... Maybe there are hidden calories that you aren't logging? For the soup, are you using the recipe builder? Are you logging any cooking oils you might be using in roasting your vegetables? Do you have cheat meals that could be wiping out any deficit you have? Because eating 2200 and then eating 1200 averages out to 1,700, which could be kind of close to maintenance, especially for someone who is 5'3".
I weigh the oil out before putting everything together, though it's barely any oil. It sucks but I'm doing it without. I don't have "cheat meals" but I do have what I want for dinner as long as I stay in range of what calories I think I should be in. And to clarify, i meant like, I did 3 months at 1200 calories then 2 months at a higher amount. I wouldnt change it daily or weekly.
What does this mean? Do you just eat dinner but not track as closely? Or just eat what you think is a good amount?
I mean I do track as I track everything else. Just the foods I eat change. I can eat a burger or veggies or a omelette, as long as it rounds out and stays until the total number of calories for the day.0 -
What's the plan if she ever injures herself? Or when she turns 55?[/quote]
1. Why the good health insurance comment?
2. It's just that it's difficult to find where I should be at to get results. The whole main point is I'm confused why I'm not losing below TDEE or gaining over maintenance.
3. What would it matter if I get injured? It's not likely in way of exercise or diet unless you're talking about something that would put me out of commission such as a car accident or something. What you meant isn't clear to me.[/quote]
I understand your number 2. I can't speak for the guy who wrote it, but #1, with the amount and type of exercise you do, without taking some breaks, you could be subject to injury as you get older. The body bounces back easier before 40 and is more flexible. Of course this varies from person to person. I used to dance and had no problems in my 20s (well except for a broken bone in my foot) but 20 years later I sprained my ankle just by walking, resprained it and when actively dancing in mid 40s, had multiple sprains and muscle strains until I finally just had to stop. My life was not going to be about epsom salts, therabands, stretching and a foot massage every day!! If I were making money off of it, okay, but not for a hobby.
Number 3 also matters because at present you are in a situation that you don't know how to control your weight. That is not your fault--something weird is happening it seems and that's going to take time to sort out. But you went from over 200 lbs. to 160s by cardio and barely eating. TMaintaining would not sustainable by just exercising everday especially if you have an injury--even a pulled muscle and can't get to the gym for a few weeks. You would be out of commission for a while and since you haven't yet figured out how to eat in maintenance then it would be a struggle under those circumstances.
2 -
-
jesshali119 wrote: »
Did you lose weight during that time?3 -
squatsnotsquat wrote: »It may simply be a problem of being "skinny fat." You look like you've built up your arms quite a bit, but what about the rest of your body? Not having enough muscle is going to make you look like you need to lose weight no matter what you weigh. Try doing very heavy, intense weight exercises on all parts of your body and see if that helps, but don't forget to take days off exercising too. You may not be getting enough protein to see any difference in your muscle tone either-- try eating at least 85% of your body weight in pounds in grams of protein and see if that helps you build more muscle. Cutting carbs may also help you ditch any bloat you have-- you'd be surprised how much skinnier you can look when you do that. Once you get down to a certain weight, there is basically nothing you can do except go keto with a trainer and insanely intense workouts. You say you were "barely eating" while doing lots of cardio and it sounds like you may have already tried eating at maintenance for a month to break your stall? You may have permanently trashed your metabolism-- not sure if that's possible, but it could be. Either way, I think you don't look like you need to lose weight, and once you get down to a certain point that's your natural weight, your body will do everything it can to prevent you from losing weight. Also realize that some looks are only achievable if you have a certain build-- some people put on muscle/lose fat easily, others don't. Some look skinnier because they have big bones/are taller or carry their weight in different areas. My friend and I are both a size 5, but we look drastically different. Be the best YOU can be, not what someone else might be able to be.
While I don't know how to manipulate images digitally, it was perhaps just the amazing high waist legging and lighting. That picture is the worst to be referenced in this discussion. My arms are fat and big, pretty much no visible muscle.
When I originally lost weight it was eating between 1000-1200 and strictly cardio for at least an hour a day.
If this is my natural weight and where I should be, this is disgusting because my stomach is huge and I could definitely get rid of it. Just don't know what I have to do for it. Being stalled at 165lbs at 5'3" is not natural for someone.0 -
jesshali119 wrote: »lucerorojo wrote: »jesshali119 wrote: »lucerorojo wrote: »How much do you weigh and height? You look normal size in the photo. Age isn't it. I'm 52 and so far I've lost 28 lbs. since July--however I also have 72 to go, and the heavier you are above normal, the faster/easier the weight comes off since there is so much extra fat stored and a calorie deficit is easier to achieve. When I first started on MFP, I was shocked to see how many calories I was eating, probably over 3,000 per day, so to cut back even to 2000 would have had me losing some weight, with a small deficit. My TDEE is about 2300 or something like that.
In your photo, if that's current, you look like you don't need to lose anything, IMO.
I'm 29 years old, 5'3" and 165lbs. Three or four (it's a blur) years ago I went from 212 to where I am now and that was from only cardio and barely eating. Yes, I have a lot of fat and weight to lose. I am not happy with where I am.
What has stuck out to me in this conversation is that the OP lost over 50 lbs. by "from only cardio and barely eating). It sounds like OP did some extreme dieting to get to 165. On MFP there is no such thing as "starvation mode" but what could have happened to her losing the 50 lbs. that makes her body not react to either eating more or less? It's bizarre that she did not gain or lose in the months that she rotated her calories from 1200-2000. But considering her youth and her exercise regimen which is pretty active--those spin classes are not easy or low intensity, is she just constantly in some kind of deficit which is why she doesn't gain? I can understand her frustration. Or it is over a year of water retention from a large deficit/stress response?
I was being a little dramatic, barely eating to me would be 1000-1200. I was not craving food in that period, I was not starving myself by way of having hunger. BUT YES, this is what I'm trying to figure out. If and could I have *kitten* up my body somehow during that time. I made amazing progress and then no matter what it came to a halt. Even with doing a weight training program.
Ok. Thanks for the clarification. That makes a big difference. When you said "barely eating" I was envisioning 400 calories a day.1 -
FWIW, I don't think that 165 lbs. is an ideal weight for someone at 5'3", especially not at 29. But your belly cannot be that big--it may seem big compared to the smaller body you have now. It has to be smaller than when you weighed over 200 right? This photo you posted still doesn't look fat, though.2
-
OP - You mentioned that logging your food on MFP became obsessive for you (which I can understand). I am just curious how logging on paper differs vs logging in an app? Are you logging in the same way? If not maybe there are some inaccuracies that would cause the lack of weight loss?3
-
squatsnotsquat wrote: »Ah I missed where she said that. I need to read slower.
With that being said, OP, we can't see how much you are eating. When you say you are eating 1,200 to 2,200, is that a weekly average or each day?
The reason I ask is because one day I may eat 2,700, but the next only 1,200. I look at my weekly average and it comes out to be about 1,800-1,900. I wonder if that is what is occurring with you. You may fluctuate how many calories you eat each day but weekly you are averaging your TDEE.
It sounded like she was doing one month 1200, the next month 2200, etc. this makes sense because they usually say to eat at maintenance to get your metabolism back up if you're at a plateau.
Yes, some people say this, yet after the OP did this, she didn't "reset" her metabolism or whatever woo, and began to lose weight again. According to her, after this, nothing woo happened to her metabolism at all; she STILL can't lose weight.3 -
squatsnotsquat wrote: »Ah I missed where she said that. I need to read slower.
With that being said, OP, we can't see how much you are eating. When you say you are eating 1,200 to 2,200, is that a weekly average or each day?
The reason I ask is because one day I may eat 2,700, but the next only 1,200. I look at my weekly average and it comes out to be about 1,800-1,900. I wonder if that is what is occurring with you. You may fluctuate how many calories you eat each day but weekly you are averaging your TDEE.
It sounded like she was doing one month 1200, the next month 2200, etc. this makes sense because they usually say to eat at maintenance to get your metabolism back up if you're at a plateau.
Yes, some people say this, yet after the OP did this, she didn't "reset" her metabolism or whatever woo, and began to lose weight again. According to her, after this, nothing woo happened to her metabolism at all; she STILL can't lose weight.
Yeah, not woo sorry. Maybe OP wasn't actually hitting maintenance. She has said that her Fitbit often gives her a TDEE of 2700, so 2200 is still a 500 cal deficit on that. Even if her average was 2400, 2200 wouldn't be enough to bring those hormones back in line, because she'd still be at a deficit, and her body would still 'think' there was a food shortage and it needed to keep those protective mechanisms in play.
The only thing I can suggest is that she do a proper, controlled diet break at maintenance. Maybe it won't work for her, but at this point she is spinning her wheels and really has nothing to lose.4 -
squatsnotsquat wrote: »Ah I missed where she said that. I need to read slower.
With that being said, OP, we can't see how much you are eating. When you say you are eating 1,200 to 2,200, is that a weekly average or each day?
The reason I ask is because one day I may eat 2,700, but the next only 1,200. I look at my weekly average and it comes out to be about 1,800-1,900. I wonder if that is what is occurring with you. You may fluctuate how many calories you eat each day but weekly you are averaging your TDEE.
It sounded like she was doing one month 1200, the next month 2200, etc. this makes sense because they usually say to eat at maintenance to get your metabolism back up if you're at a plateau.
Yes, some people say this, yet after the OP did this, she didn't "reset" her metabolism or whatever woo, and began to lose weight again. According to her, after this, nothing woo happened to her metabolism at all; she STILL can't lose weight.
Apparently the OP ate at several different calorie levels for several weeks, including a low of 1200 and a high of 2200. If this were strictly a logging issue, one would think that at some point, all this sloppy logging would have resulted in a weight gain, which according to OP, did not happen. I think it is always important to stress the importance of logging, but I don't think that is all that is going on here. And it can't hurt her to try it. It may actually help.4 -
jesshali119 wrote: »
While I don't know how to manipulate images digitally, it was perhaps just the amazing high waist legging and lighting. That picture is the worst to be referenced in this discussion. My arms are fat and big, pretty much no visible muscle.
When I originally lost weight it was eating between 1000-1200 and strictly cardio for at least an hour a day.
If this is my natural weight and where I should be, this is disgusting because my stomach is huge and I could definitely get rid of it. Just don't know what I have to do for it. Being stalled at 165lbs at 5'3" is not natural for someone.
I completely understand this. I'm 5'4" and weigh about 150. Most of my fat is on my belly (probably a combination of where I genetically hold fat and having children/stretched skin). It's very disheartening. But I know over time I can make changes. However it won't happen like how you lost the weight (bolded). Severely slashing your calories and heaping on loads of cardio may be a quick way to lose weight but it's also a recipe to lose muscle mass.
While I'm not at my goal yet, I am much more comfortable at 150 than I was at 170 so I'm more content to take it slower. Lower deficit, longer breaks... Mostly just breaks at this point.
If you can eat only 1200 and spend lots of time on cardio, why not try a long maintenance break (the highest maintenance level for you, which is apparently all of them) and use one of the programs suggested above (I've done both thinner, leaner, stronger and strong lifts.) Get some newbie gains. Ignore the scale or use it as data points only. Take body measurements and photos. Focus on decreasing fat and getting/saving muscle.1
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