Not losing logical amt of weight?!!!

Options
2»

Replies

  • 4cplusplus
    4cplusplus Posts: 5 Member
    Options
    I generally like to think I have good intuitive eating, and am not interesting in starving myself, however sometimes I just don't feel hungry and ~1000 calories is sufficient for me, probably because of my body composition as people have mentioned... also Id rather not spend the next 6 months painstakingly making my way down the number scale, Id rather be slightly uncomfortable now and be done faster, thus the frustration with my current results.
  • ladyhusker39
    ladyhusker39 Posts: 1,406 Member
    Options
    jflongo wrote: »
    Let me say a couple of things, and yes I agree weight items as well.

    Don't always follow what it says you burned for calories. Just because you burn 400 calories, doesn't mean you can eat 400 more calories, it doesn't work that way. Also, 900 calories is a very small amount as well if that is true, and 900 - 1600 is a huge swing.

    Figure out your maintenance calories and try and hit that, and pay attention to your macro %'s.

    I don't get this statement. Can you please clarify what you mean?
  • ccrdragon
    ccrdragon Posts: 3,366 Member
    Options
    ladyhusker39 wrote: »
    jflongo wrote: »
    Let me say a couple of things, and yes I agree weight items as well.

    Don't always follow what it says you burned for calories. Just because you burn 400 calories, doesn't mean you can eat 400 more calories, it doesn't work that way. Also, 900 calories is a very small amount as well if that is true, and 900 - 1600 is a huge swing.

    Figure out your maintenance calories and try and hit that, and pay attention to your macro %'s.

    I don't get this statement. Can you please clarify what you mean?

    I think what he means is that exercise estimates are very much a ballpark figure, which is why it is recommended to only eat 1/2 of the exercise calories back. At least that's what I hope he means...
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,728 Member
    Options
    jflongo wrote: »
    Let me say a couple of things, and yes I agree weight items as well.

    Don't always follow what it says you burned for calories. Just because you burn 400 calories, doesn't mean you can eat 400 more calories, it doesn't work that way. Also, 900 calories is a very small amount as well if that is true, and 900 - 1600 is a huge swing.

    Figure out your maintenance calories and try and hit that, and pay attention to your macro %'s.
    ladyhusker39 wrote: »
    jflongo wrote: »
    Let me say a couple of things, and yes I agree weight items as well.

    Don't always follow what it says you burned for calories. Just because you burn 400 calories, doesn't mean you can eat 400 more calories, it doesn't work that way. Also, 900 calories is a very small amount as well if that is true, and 900 - 1600 is a huge swing.

    Figure out your maintenance calories and try and hit that, and pay attention to your macro %'s.

    I don't get this statement. Can you please clarify what you mean?

    A better way to phrase it is

    Most fitness machines/exercise calculators overestimate by 25-200% of actual calorie burn.

    For example, Tuesday I did 4.6 miles walk/run on a trail near my residence. Garmin estimated about 600 calories, which may be high, but isn't an overestimate.

    My garmin data flows to Strava. For the same data. Distance, speed, HR, Strava gives me almost 1100 calories.

    What it comes down to is you need reliable estimation and until you test the data, it's best not to trust it and round down to 50% or so.
  • callsitlikeiseeit
    callsitlikeiseeit Posts: 8,627 Member
    Options
    at your height and weight im pretty sure youre in the normal range. weight loss will take much diligence. 3 pounds in a week with that little to lose is PHENOMENAL.

    look into recomp, it will probably give you the results you are actually looking for. unless you want to look sick.

    i mean, i guess its a look.
  • youngmomtaz
    youngmomtaz Posts: 1,075 Member
    Options
    4cplusplus wrote: »
    I am a small frame (I can wrap fingers well around my wrist) so I would like to lose around 20 lb, if possible.

    As for body composition, I am definitely skinny fat and have a much higher fat/muscle ratio than the avg woman my age, so body composition is an issue but I assume that if I reduce weight it will be body fat and not muscle as I have pretty much none to begin with.

    And for cheat/skip days etc, I don't really have those, I don't have binge problems or ever really eat/crave unhealthy things, at most Im underestimating volume and eating at the higher end of my range, which is still certainly <2000 cal. That is still low for someone my height and activity level!


    Another here with the small framed wrists. That is where it ends for me. Take your whole body into account. I can wrap my fingers around my wrists with room to spare but have wide hips and broad shoulders.

    Maybe think about a recomp? I weigh the same as you and am 3” shorter. I am working on lifting as much as possible for strength and body aesthetics. Eat a few more(weighed in grams) calories, lose slowly to maintain more muscle, and lift heavy things. There is great thread about recomp in the weight gain section I think.

  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Options
    It's really a good rate of loss for what you have to lose. And yes a food scale should help, from what your diet looks like there is a lot of potential for underestimating calories (noodles, rice, peanuts).
  • try2again
    try2again Posts: 3,562 Member
    edited January 2018
    Options
    kimny72 wrote: »
    4cplusplus wrote: »
    I generally like to think I have good intuitive eating, and am not interesting in starving myself, however sometimes I just don't feel hungry and ~1000 calories is sufficient for me, probably because of my body composition as people have mentioned... also Id rather not spend the next 6 months painstakingly making my way down the number scale, Id rather be slightly uncomfortable now and be done faster, thus the frustration with my current results.

    The bolded is a great way to lose even more muscle and be even less happy with how you look when you hit your goal weight. Also a recipe for struggling with maintenance. Eat at a reasonable deficit and lose at a reasonable pace and learn how to eat in a way you enjoy and be at the right calorie level to maintain your goal weight once you get there.

    You are already in the healthy weight range for your height. Your current weight is on the high end and your goal weight is on the low end. Your best bet is a slower pace prioritizing protecting as much muscle as you can as you go. good luck!

    ^ This.

    OP, you made the statement: "I assume that if I reduce weight it will be body fat and not muscle as I have pretty much none to begin with." That's not necessarily how it works. Anyone who loses weight loses a combination of fat & lean muscle mass. The goal is to target a higher ratio of fat to muscle, which a person does by pursuing a modest deficit, getting adequate protein, and strength training. Too steep of a deficit (too few calories) causes the body to burn more of its lean muscle mass in proportion to fat. It doesn't matter if you have toned, visible muscle or not, you can still burn lean body mass. Your heart is muscle, for instance. That being said, I don't necessarily think you are undereating at this point. 3 lbs in a month sounds terrific. It does sound like you could likely use more consistency (900-1600 is quite a range), because when a person is already at a healthy BMI, consistency and accurate logging are generally a must, because there just isn't a lot of room for error. And as other posters have mentioned, faster isn't necessarily better because we need time to develop good habits for maintenance.

    Edit: I was writing my post when @AnnPT77 posted, and she basically covered my points in a much cooler way ;)
  • HoneyBadger302
    HoneyBadger302 Posts: 1,980 Member
    Options
    To add to what many others are already saying (or to say it slightly differently), if you start some strength training and build some muscle, the benefits are:
    -You will have a toned, shapely figure once you reach your goal
    -More muscle means more fat burning even when you're not exercising
    -You'll feel stronger and more able to do things, which does amazing things for one's self confidence (something we don't always realize we are missing until it starts to happen).
  • 4cplusplus
    4cplusplus Posts: 5 Member
    Options
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    4cplusplus wrote: »
    I generally like to think I have good intuitive eating, and am not interesting in starving myself, however sometimes I just don't feel hungry and ~1000 calories is sufficient for me, probably because of my body composition as people have mentioned... also Id rather not spend the next 6 months painstakingly making my way down the number scale, Id rather be slightly uncomfortable now and be done faster, thus the frustration with my current results.

    Two thing to add to mostly good advice above:

    1. You said in a previous post that you're already "skinny fat" (ugh, hate the term), and that you think that means you will lose only fat, not muscle. If you lose at a too-fast rate, I'll bet you can prove yourself wrong. Is previous fast loss or repeated yo-yo loss part of how you got to this state in the first place?

    2. The sample day's eating you posted looks woefully short on protein to me (and I'm a vegetarian!). There are three common ways to get to an over-fat and under-muscled state: Too fast weight loss, not enough protein, too little strength-building exercise. You seem to be striving for the trifecta. Why? It's oppositional to your goals!

    You may feel that my tone seems angry or mean. That's not my intention. It's that - improbably enough, since you're a complete stranger - I do care.

    Pretend I'm your granny (I'm old enough ;) ): Granny wants to see you be strong, healthy, fit, energetic and vivacious while you achieve your weight loss goals.

    (P.S. At 5'5", weight in 120s, age 62, exercise volume similar to yours, granny still loses weight at 1800+ calories. Pretty likely that at nearly 40 pounds heavier, 5" taller, and 40 years younger, you would, too.)

    Thanks for the input. I've never built muscle well, all the women in my family are my around height/body composition, albeit somewhat thinner. I used to be much thinner in high school, ~120 lb due to doing 3 sports and, admittedly, restrictive obsessiveness with health foods. I shot up in college after stopping exercising altogether and not focusing on what I ate (not eating junk per say just not being a health freak). I would yo-yo between 150-165 lb from year to year without trying/being focused on weight or diet at all... point being I dont really think it's due to failed yo-yo dieting but rather my body attempting to stay where it wants to be (i.e. higher end normal BMI and not that muscular).

    With regards to protein, I find it really hard to eat adequate sources of protein and have been trying to incorporate that into my diet (thus the breakfast foods lol). I am not a strict pescatarian as I obviously eat broths/soups with trace amounts of meat but I dont eat cuts of meat by themselves. I'll have to keep working on that aspect of my diet, however.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,732 Member
    edited January 2018
    Options
    Listen to granny.

    You may or may not be eating more than you think.

    Your targeted amount to eat is too low, especially if hospital cafeteria means you work there, which +most if the time+ means ~9-11k steps and an active MFP setting PLUS exercise calories and 0.5 to 1lb a week target as a normal weight individual.

    Weight trend app or web site. At a normal weight as a pre menopausal women you should not be able to tell you're losing weight without looking at your trend if you're losing at an optimally slow rate to reverse skinny fat, assuming you're even that crappy term based on perhaps slightly skewed self perception. Are you really metabolically obese at a normal weight?

    Look into recomp, strength training, tiny deficit, and more protein.

    There is other good advice, but I like listening to granny first!!! :wink:
  • paris458
    paris458 Posts: 231 Member
    Options
    [/quote]As long as you understand that that means losing more muscle and still not liking your body when you get to goal weight? [/quote]

    You do not want to lose your muscle. I did this horrible diet with no exercise and lost weight fast but I was not happy, tired and weak. Took me forever to build some muscle back and I look way better and still was able to maintain a lower weight a lot easier.

Categories