Weight loss math doesn't work, so confused!
Replies
-
musicfan68 wrote: »It's only been a week and a half and you are freaking out? You need to be patient. You aren't going to lose 2 lbs a week every week. Some weeks you won't lose anything. Just how it goes.
^^ this0 -
OP, I read an interesting article the other day comparing metabolisms between those with PCOS, those without PCOS, and those with PCOS and insulin resistance.
The average metabolism of someone without PCOS: 1,868 +/- 41 kcal/day
The average metabolism in someone with PCOS: 1,590 +/- 130 kcal/day
The average metabolism in someone with PCOS and insulin resistance: 1,116 +/- 106 kcal/day
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18678372
This means that if you have PCOS and insulin resistance, your metabolism will be less then 1,200 a day. It will be extremely difficult to create a calorie deficit with such small numbers.
I would encourage you to visit your doctor and ask for blood work to determine if you are insulin resistant. There are medications available. Exercise, such as walking and weight lifting, may help improve insulin sensitivity too.
While calories a key to weight loss, a plant based diet has been shown to improve blood sugars in diabetics, so it may help with insulin resistance. Here are some tips for looking into a plant based diet: https://issuu.com/enrichcreative/docs/tpp-quickstart-guide-fnl
5 -
odonrom1946 wrote: »Perhaps I was hoping for a more linear decline in my weight. It's been stuck for 1.5 weeks and not moved regardless of my diet and exercise
What weight loss looks like...
Also, in the early stages of a diet bigger drops in weight are pretty normal as you release water and have inherently less waste in your system. After that it slows to a more realistic rate and you will have weeks with bigger losses, smaller losses, no losses, and gains...you have to look at trends over weeks an months.12 -
Macros are very important here, especially when busting through a stand still in progress. Your body will keep trying to find a new set point for your weight which is why you stop losing weigh. This is called homeostasis. Cutting carbs and increasing protein may be the way to go. You might even try intermittent fasting. Be warned though that cutting calories too low will cause your body to go into survival mode; meaning it will slow your metabolism because food is scarce. I hope this helps.55
-
special_ed1977 wrote: »Macros are very important here, especially when busting through a stand still in progress. Your body will keep trying to find a new set point for your weight which is why you stop losing weigh. This is called homeostasis. Cutting carbs and increasing protein may be the way to go. You might even try intermittent fasting. Be warned though that cutting calories too low will cause your body to go into survival mode; meaning it will slow your metabolism because food is scarce. I hope this helps.
The what now?16 -
special_ed1977 wrote: »Macros are very important here, especially when busting through a stand still in progress. Your body will keep trying to find a new set point for your weight which is why you stop losing weigh. This is called homeostasis. Cutting carbs and increasing protein may be the way to go. You might even try intermittent fasting. Be warned though that cutting calories too low will cause your body to go into survival mode; meaning it will slow your metabolism because food is scarce. I hope this helps.
No. No it doesn't help. It's a confusing stew of woo and mis-applied buzz words.21 -
Your diary has a lot of entries that look like someone else created them -- 1 serving of beef stew, 1 serving of spinach lasagna, 1/2 a tuna salad sandwich, etc. Are you creating those recipes using the recipe builder? If not, I'll guarantee that they don't accurately reflect what you're eating. It's certainly possible that you are making cauliflower soup for 53 calories a serving and a half tuna salad sandwich for 134 calories, but it doesn't seem likely that those calorie counts are really accurate.
Also, any time you have an entry for an item where you're combining two things -- like a fried egg -- it's more accurate to add the separate components rather than search for an entry that includes both. So, you'd want to add the eggs and the oil/butter to your diary separately.17 -
special_ed1977 wrote: »Macros are very important here, especially when busting through a stand still in progress. Your body will keep trying to find a new set point for your weight which is why you stop losing weigh. This is called homeostasis. Cutting carbs and increasing protein may be the way to go. You might even try intermittent fasting. Be warned though that cutting calories too low will cause your body to go into survival mode; meaning it will slow your metabolism because food is scarce. I hope this helps.
wow, winner for so much woo in one post!?15 -
MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »MHarper522 wrote: »
TL; DR You're not eating enough, your body is trying to save you from yourself.
Nope, doesn't work that way. Odds are better that there's a logging error, or a numbers error. If you're referring to 'starvation mode', that's not a thing.
Not that either. OP's results over one month are actually quite close to stated TDEE and stated calorie intake. It's an expectations error.2 -
special_ed1977 wrote: »Macros are very important here, especially when busting through a stand still in progress. Your body will keep trying to find a new set point for your weight which is why you stop losing weigh. This is called homeostasis. Cutting carbs and increasing protein may be the way to go. You might even try intermittent fasting. Be warned though that cutting calories too low will cause your body to go into survival mode; meaning it will slow your metabolism because food is scarce. I hope this helps.
10 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »odonrom1946 wrote: »Perhaps I was hoping for a more linear decline in my weight. It's been stuck for 1.5 weeks and not moved regardless of my diet and exercise
What weight loss looks like...
Also, in the early stages of a diet bigger drops in weight are pretty normal as you release water and have inherently less waste in your system. After that it slows to a more realistic rate and you will have weeks with bigger losses, smaller losses, no losses, and gains...you have to look at trends over weeks an months.
Quoting for truth and also adding MY weight loss graph over the last THREE MONTHS, not just a week.
EDIT: See, it's really normal to not be quite so linear.
2 -
Thank you aeloine! These graphs are really helpful to see how large the swings are. I was starting to get frustrated by the scale after only 2 weeks. Now I know I need to collate data for much longer before I start to be able to create a downward trend. Thanks for sharing
3 -
ive been playing around with the same 3lbs for the past 3 weeks
just how it is don't quit 8 -
__________________________________________________________________________________cwolfman13 wrote: »odonrom1946 wrote: »Perhaps I was hoping for a more linear decline in my weight. It's been stuck for 1.5 weeks and not moved regardless of my diet and exercise
What weight loss looks like...
Also, in the early stages of a diet bigger drops in weight are pretty normal as you release water and have inherently less waste in your system. After that it slows to a more realistic rate and you will have weeks with bigger losses, smaller losses, no losses, and gains...you have to look at trends over weeks an months.
Quoting for truth and also adding MY weight loss graph over the last THREE MONTHS, not just a wee
k.
Also adding my weight loss graph for the last 3 months.
Your weight will fluctuate a lot and you'll just have to get use to that.
Give it time and don't give up!
3 -
jocelynmoore08 wrote: »Thank you aeloine! These graphs are really helpful to see how large the swings are. I was starting to get frustrated by the scale after only 2 weeks. Now I know I need to collate data for much longer before I start to be able to create a downward trend. Thanks for sharing
@jocelynmoore08 here's my ALL time graph (3+ years). The day to day above looks like it's all over the place but it evens out. Hang in there!
EDIT: Obviously I didn't want to GAIN. I just wasn't committed to losing for a couple of years. The down trend started around April of last year.
6 -
blackmantis wrote: »ive been playing around with the same 3lbs for the past 3 weeks just how it is don't quit
^^^^^^ TWO MONTHS for me (I'm down to the last 7-10lbs and it's taking forever).
Just have to trust the process.2 -
As other people said weight loss (ie your scale weight) is not just a function of fat (which is what you are calculating the loss of) but also of water. There is no way to predict your weight loss on a week to week basis and have any sort of accuracy. Water weight fluctuates and over long stretches of time it will average out and what you will see is the underlying loss of fat.
That said healthy weight loss is a marathon, not a sprint. Your lack of patience seems to be having you try to grit your teeth and run as fast as you can if you are attempting to eat 1200 calories when burning 2700. That isn't healthy or sustainable, you are just tearing yourself down doing that. You would be much better off both in terms of health and likelyhood of success if you eased up a bit and set a more reasonable caloric deficit goal.4 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »BitofaState wrote: »MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »MHarper522 wrote: »
TL; DR You're not eating enough, your body is trying to save you from yourself.
Nope, doesn't work that way. Odds are better that there's a logging error, or a numbers error. If you're referring to 'starvation mode', that's not a thing.
Weird how science says that it is actually a "thing" and can persist fro a considerable period of time https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27136388
I'm sure you don't "believe" that, but you know facts are not dependent on belief.
Metabolic adaptation is not the same as the "Starvation Mode" that is touted regularly on the boards as the reason someone is not losing weight from eating low calorie for less than 2 weeks. It also only slows rate of loss, doesn't stop you losing weight or cause weight gain.
It does depend on your dieting history, if you've yo-yo'd for years a reduction in calorie intake will cause a more significant response in your metabolism as you've cause an adaptation to such behaviors. Perhaps it is the understanding of metabolic adaptation contra the generic "starvation mode", but everyone will react differently (one of the things the study also shows) and just because you have never personally experienced it does not make it real.13 -
dinadyna21 wrote: »BitofaState wrote: »MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »MHarper522 wrote: »
TL; DR You're not eating enough, your body is trying to save you from yourself.
Nope, doesn't work that way. Odds are better that there's a logging error, or a numbers error. If you're referring to 'starvation mode', that's not a thing.
Weird how science says that it is actually a "thing" and can persist fro a considerable period of time https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27136388
I'm sure you don't "believe" that, but you know facts are not dependent on belief.
What most people think starvation mode is: I've only been eating 1000 calories for 3 weeks and I haven't lost anything, my body must be holding onto my 100+ extra fat stores.
What science says it really is: It involves the body responding to reduced calorie intake by reducing calorie expenditure in an attempt to maintain energy balance and prevent starvation.
If a deficit is present your body will lose weight, it cannot and will not hold onto excess fat stores when it needs them to keep you alive. If the reverse were true people would never starve to death.
Thanks for your definition of starvation mode, I look forward to the peer reviewed paper.
The point is that for some people that deficit will not be present as the body attempts to hold on to stores as available calories from diet drops. This is not generic, there is a vast variation in this response, most likely due to inherited characteristics from ancestors that survived long periods of starvation. If the body didn't hold on to essential store people that starved to death would have zero body fat, instead they tend to retain some BF and lose muscle mass as their weight drops.
One "error" people make is thinking that the calorie used estimates available from MFP, or even fitness trackers (and yes I rely on one of those) is accurate when in a reduced calorie regime, this isn't a logging error. You can of course combat the slow down by increasing activity levels - go for a walk - but if you've been a yo-yo dieter for years it's likely that you have an exaggerated response to calorie restriction.25 -
BitofaState wrote: »dinadyna21 wrote: »BitofaState wrote: »MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »MHarper522 wrote: »
TL; DR You're not eating enough, your body is trying to save you from yourself.
Nope, doesn't work that way. Odds are better that there's a logging error, or a numbers error. If you're referring to 'starvation mode', that's not a thing.
Weird how science says that it is actually a "thing" and can persist fro a considerable period of time https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27136388
I'm sure you don't "believe" that, but you know facts are not dependent on belief.
What most people think starvation mode is: I've only been eating 1000 calories for 3 weeks and I haven't lost anything, my body must be holding onto my 100+ extra fat stores.
What science says it really is: It involves the body responding to reduced calorie intake by reducing calorie expenditure in an attempt to maintain energy balance and prevent starvation.
If a deficit is present your body will lose weight, it cannot and will not hold onto excess fat stores when it needs them to keep you alive. If the reverse were true people would never starve to death.
Thanks for your definition of starvation mode, I look forward to the peer reviewed paper.
The point is that for some people that deficit will not be present as the body attempts to hold on to stores as available calories from diet drops. This is not generic, there is a vast variation in this response, most likely due to inherited characteristics from ancestors that survived long periods of starvation. If the body didn't hold on to essential store people that starved to death would have zero body fat, instead they tend to retain some BF and lose muscle mass as their weight drops.
One "error" people make is thinking that the calorie used estimates available from MFP, or even fitness trackers (and yes I rely on one of those) is accurate when in a reduced calorie regime, this isn't a logging error. You can of course combat the slow down by increasing activity levels - go for a walk - but if you've been a yo-yo dieter for years it's likely that you have an exaggerated response to calorie restriction.
By your own explanation, your body will still lose weight while it's starving, but at some point it will turn to getting energy from muscle instead of fat because fat is necessary for organs like the brain. We all want to lose fat, not muscle, but even if our body thinks it's starving and turms to muscle, we will Still. Lose. Weight.5 -
JMcGee2018 wrote: »
By your own explanation, your body will still lose weight while it's starving, but at some point it will turn to getting energy from muscle instead of fat because fat is necessary for organs like the brain. We all want to lose fat, not muscle, but even if our body thinks it's starving and turms to muscle, we will Still. Lose. Weight.
If. We. Are. In. A. Calorific. Deficit.
You assume that the metabolic adaptation will never fully counter the calorie restriction - the study quoted showed that the adaptation was maintained even in those that regained weight - i.e. went into a calorie surplus.
The body is a very complex organism and a simple mechanistic approach (calories in - calories out) based on estimates of both of those factors will not be true for the whole population, for some folks "starvation mode" is actually "a thing".25 -
BitofaState wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »
By your own explanation, your body will still lose weight while it's starving, but at some point it will turn to getting energy from muscle instead of fat because fat is necessary for organs like the brain. We all want to lose fat, not muscle, but even if our body thinks it's starving and turms to muscle, we will Still. Lose. Weight.
If. We. Are. In. A. Calorific. Deficit.
You assume that the metabolic adaptation will never fully counter the calorie restriction - the study quoted showed that the adaptation was maintained even in those that regained weight - i.e. went into a calorie surplus.
The body is a very complex organism and a simple mechanistic approach (calories in - calories out) based on estimates of both of those factors will not be true for the whole population, for some folks "starvation mode" is actually "a thing".
So how do people actually starve to death, if what you are saying is true?
19 -
BitofaState wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »
By your own explanation, your body will still lose weight while it's starving, but at some point it will turn to getting energy from muscle instead of fat because fat is necessary for organs like the brain. We all want to lose fat, not muscle, but even if our body thinks it's starving and turms to muscle, we will Still. Lose. Weight.
If. We. Are. In. A. Calorific. Deficit.
You assume that the metabolic adaptation will never fully counter the calorie restriction - the study quoted showed that the adaptation was maintained even in those that regained weight - i.e. went into a calorie surplus.
The body is a very complex organism and a simple mechanistic approach (calories in - calories out) based on estimates of both of those factors will not be true for the whole population, for some folks "starvation mode" is actually "a thing".
Yes, if we are in a calorific deficit. I thought that was implied. And even if your body did go through metabolic adaptation in a way that substantially lowered your metabolism, it is still possible to go into a deficit and lose weight, it's just harder to do so and might require an actual BMR test and being under a doctor's supervision to safely undergo a drastic calorie reduction, rather than basing your diet on MFP estimates. It's still possible, though.6 -
Woof, looks like some hugs are needed all around this morning! The mods have asked that we avoid getting into debates on this forum and focusing on the OP, so maybe the starvation mode discussion should head over to the debate forum?
To the OP: You can do this! Logging takes some time to get a handle on, so try and tighten things up if there’s room to do so. As many great charts have shown above, weight loss isn’t linear and you’re going to see a lot of ups and downs. You just need to find a routine you can stick with and be patient. If you’re struggling to stick to a particular deficit, it’s always okay to back off a bit and give yourself time to adapt. Good luck and stick to it!11 -
lisaquelleington wrote: »Weigh is. FORCE, loser. Weight loss occurscin WATER OR ON THE MOON. FORCES HAVE NOTHINGVTO DO WITH CALORIES, A TOTALKY ABSTRACT MADE UP UNIT FIR A MADECUP ABSTRACT PROPERTY WE ASSIGH AND INVENTEE CALLED ENERGY.
In English, we use weight loss as a euphemism for fat loss. It's an accepted convention. Further, calories have a provable and direct impact on overall weight loss as well as BF loss.
Also, Try spell check and finding your shift button.5 -
Bye Felicialisaquelleington wrote: »F. U. C. K faced liar
5 -
another troll bites the dust...1
-
Time for the MFP moderators to step in and sort the trolling and his/her swearing.0
-
Yikes...2
-
Hey flaggers - you need to Flag > Report to get a moderator. Flag > Abuse or Spam goes to the automated system.6
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions