Why am I still so heavy?!

How satisfied are with how you are living in general and eating in particular? If what you are doing is sustainable long term, don’t mess with it. It’s working. If you want to change anything, change your thinking.

Consider this- sounds like if you stay the course, you will make it to your goal weight. It’s just a matter of time. Why do you want to risk that in favor of speed.? Speed in weight loss is an illusion. The process doesn’t end at goal weight.

There are a number of factors to consider. First, if you weigh yourself everyday, stop! Weight can fluctuate rapidly through the day just like blood pressure. Once a week is sufficient.

Since you didn't post your age, it's hard to tell what your caloric range should be but let's assume you have the correct caloric intake.

Any weight loss is good no matter how slow you may think it is. Sadly most people think weight loss should happen way faster than it does and typically the faster the loss, the more likely you are to gain it all back.

Since sustained weight loss is a slow process, you have to adjust habits to account for this.

Look at your diet and make sure you are eating sufficient amounts of protein in that 1800 calories. Reducing carbs and increasing protein doesn't mean more calories but the body will use that protein more efficiently. This is the reason why Keto diets are popular. Reducing carbs to roughly 50g - 100g per day means the body looks to fat stores for energy because there is less glucose to use.

Also, if you have been doing the same exercise routine for a long time, you need to change it up. The body can adapt to these routines and it doesn't work as hard as you think. Add more weight bearing/ resistance training to improve muscle tone and or size. Muscle burns way more calories.

On keto, the body is burning the fat that you eat (you're going to burn whatever you eat on any diet, up to maintenance, and then store any excess as fat). If you are in a calorie deficit along with the keto, the body will burn fat stores as well. If you are in a calorie deficit along with any other diet, the body will burn fat stores.

There are not "types of calories" any more than there are "types of inches". How many calories you eat is the key for weight loss.

Nutrition is relevant to weight loss via how your food choices affect satiation (so compliance with calorie goal) or energy level (so you don't become fatigued and less active in daily life, burning fewer calories).

You've lost just a bit under a pound a week, so far. That's a good rate. And we don't know where you stand right now with respect to water weight fluctuation (muscle repair related to exercise, monthly hormonal cycle, more) . . . so you could be losing fat faster than the scale tells you.

Give it another 3-4 weeks.

Dilvish wrote: »

There are a number of factors to consider. First, if you weigh yourself everyday, stop! Weight can fluctuate rapidly through the day just like blood pressure. Once a week is sufficient.

Since you didn't post your age, it's hard to tell what your caloric range should be but let's assume you have the correct caloric intake.

Any weight loss is good no matter how slow you may think it is. Sadly most people think weight loss should happen way faster than it does and typically the faster the loss, the more likely you are to gain it all back.

Since sustained weight loss is a slow process, you have to adjust habits to account for this.

Look at your diet and make sure you are eating sufficient amounts of protein in that 1800 calories. Reducing carbs and increasing protein doesn't mean more calories but the body will use that protein more efficiently. This is the reason why Keto diets are popular. Reducing carbs to roughly 50g - 100g per day means the body looks to fat stores for energy because there is less glucose to use.

Also, if you have been doing the same exercise routine for a long time, you need to change it up. The body can adapt to these routines and it doesn't work as hard as you think. Add more weight bearing/ resistance training to improve muscle tone and or size. Muscle burns way more calories.

Frequency of weighing is very personal, there's nothing universally wrong with weighing yourself daily. It might be wrong for some people, just as it's great for some people.

You don't have to go low carb to lose weight, you use your body's fat reserves when you are in a calorie deficit no matter what macros you choose. Remember your physics lessons from school? Your energy has to come from somewhere.
Remember if you go low carb but in a calorie surplus you will be gaining body fat.

You misunderstand how your body uses fat and glycogen for energy - it's not sequential.

No you don't have to change up your exercise choices. The adaptation to exercise is that you get fitter and stronger and increase your physical capabilities. Any physiological adaptation is tiny and insignificant.

No muscle doesn't burn way more calories, it's actually a very low contributor to your energy requirements pound for pound and not much higher than fat (about 4cals more per pound per day). Using your muscles - now that can be a big calorie burn.

But there's some good points in your post too.

Dilvish wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

There are not "types of calories" any more than there are "types of inches". How many calories you eat is the key for weight loss.

So you are saying if a person consumes say 1400 calories as as chocolate bars versus 1400 calories as vegetarian food they will still lose weight? At what cost to the body?

Carbohydrate calories definitely effect the way the body stores or burns fat. It's even posted on the MFP blog
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/ask-the-dietitian-is-a-calorie-a-calorie-2/

Did you not read the sentence RIGHT below the one you quoted?

Dilvish wrote: »

There are a number of factors to consider. First, if you weigh yourself everyday, stop! Weight can fluctuate rapidly through the day just like blood pressure. Once a week is sufficient.

I disagree. Weighing yourself every day will give you data on how your body holds sodium, water fluctuations, what your body does at that time of the month.

You will see trends and be able to see why you are up a few pounds and realize that it is not fat, but rather some other fluctuation.

Weighing once a week will give you your weight for that day and that particular time only. It won't show you that you were down two pounds a few days ago and that the trend is heading downward, rather than staying stagnant or even going up.

I recommend downloading an app like Libra or Happy Scale and recording your weight every day to see your trends.

You mentioned that you weighed some broccoli, but the way I interpreted that sentence, it sounds like you don't usually weigh all of your foods. Am I interpreting correctly? If you aren't weighing to the gram every time you eat, then you may not be consuming the number of calories that you believe you are.

Don't get caught up in "types" of calories or keto or confusing your body with calories. It's all garbage. You will feel best when you eat the macro split (the number of fat, carb and protein grams) that is optimal for your satiety levels, which you'll have to experiment to find yourself. I think that the higher end of protein consumption generally yields a better result as you lose weight, but again... that's all personal. You can 100% eat 1800 calories worth of chocolate bars and lose weight, but you will be hungry all the time and if you sustain that, you will have complications for not getting enough nutrients in your diet. So eat food you enjoy, at the calorie level that you have set out (give it a few more weeks!), but weigh it all, and then see how you are doing.

Dilvish wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

There are not "types of calories" any more than there are "types of inches". How many calories you eat is the key for weight loss.

So you are saying if a person consumes say 1400 calories as as chocolate bars versus 1400 calories as vegetarian food they will still lose weight? At what cost to the body?

Carbohydrate calories definitely effect the way the body stores or burns fat. It's even posted on the MFP blog
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/ask-the-dietitian-is-a-calorie-a-calorie-2/

I am saying that if someone speaks of "types of calories", they are either (1) intentionally using a synecdoche (one that creates confusion in readers), (2) not communicating clearly, or (3) not thinking clearly . . . or perhaps all three.

Calories are units for measuring energy content. That's it. They're like inches. There are not "cloth inches" and "boulder inches". There's only one type of inches, and the inch measurement is just one property of something (like cloth or a boulder), that has other properties. (For example, I'd prefer to wear something made of cloth vs. boulders.)

Similarly, calories measure one (and only one) property of food, the energy content. One would get different nutrients from chocolate bars than broccoli, of course. (Most chocolate bars are vegetarian: Trust me, I've been been vegetarian for 45 years now. Your original comparison of chocolate bars vs. vegetarian food makes zero sense. Not only are many chocolate bars vegetarian, but you're comparing a mono-diet to a balanced diet.)

Also, as someone else pointed out, the very next paragraph in my PP, from which you selectively snipped the passage you quoted, was:

Nutrition is relevant to weight loss via how your food choices affect satiation (so compliance with calorie goal) or energy level (so you don't become fatigued and less active in daily life, burning fewer calories).

. . . and they're both short paragraphs, so that was hard to miss, I would think.

I didn't comment on nutrition and health at all, but obviously chocolate is nutritionally different from broccoli is different from skin-less steamed chicken breast is different from walnuts. Depending on one's day, any of those might be suitable, or even preferred.

The very first paragraph of the blog you link says "according to the laws of thermodymanics, yes, all calories are created equal", then goes on to explain that different macronutrients follow different biochemical pathways to be converted to usable energy in the body, and that each macronutrient has a different effect on the body, as do different individual foods. Unfortunately, the blog post - while largely factually correct - is using "calories" as a synecdoche, metaphor or metonymy, creating unnecessary confusion.

I don't know the effect of consuming all one's calories from chocolate bars vs. vegetarian food (still an absurd comparison, BTW), because the "all chocolate bars" diet is a really stupid idea that no one has proposed. I believe that either of those two diets (at 1400 calories) would have approximately the same effect on bodyweight in the short run, if all other things could be held equal (like activity level, especially). In the longer run, "all chocolate bars" would have a deleterious effect on health and energy level, possibly causing nutritional deficiencies, which could result in wasting or excess fat storage - I'm not sure which. But again, no one has proposed such an idiotic thing (except your post).

None of that means there are different types of calories, for the same reason there aren't different types of inches, or degrees centigrade, or any other measurement unit, because they're just measurement units.