Not losing weight

Weight loss isn't linear. It isn't uncommon to have a small stretch of days where you lose nothing and then suddenly you get a whoosh. As long as you're using a food scale and tracking accurately, not eating back too many exercise calories then just trust the process. Re-assess if after 4-6 weeks no weight moves.

Without more data it's a guesstimate for anyone responding. Age, height, weight can help us determine what the issues may be. Even the most accurate calculation needs this information.

If I had to guess I'd say your caloric intake is too low for someone who is hitting the gym 3 times a week and then doing light exercise the rest of the time. Having said that your body may be storing fat instead of burning it because it is not getting enough fuel.

You indicate how much you are consuming calorie wise (1200) but you don't indicate if you are measuring/weighing your food to ensure the numbers are as accurate as possible. Many people "eyeball" their food consumption and are shocked when they find out that the estimating is way off.

What happens when you reach your goal weight? Do you stop the exercise and eat more calories? Sadly this is the reason why sustained weight loss fails. People automatically drop what they have been doing once the goal weight is achieved.

Losing weight and keeping it off requires a lifestyle change so hitting the gym hard and reducing your caloric intake to that of a child is ultimately just setting you up to fail.

Slow and steady wins the day. Work on exercise and eating habits that you can maintain indefinitely. Weight loss is a journey, not a destination.

leahsampson94 wrote: »

Hi Dilvish.

I’m not hitting the gym 3 times a week. I do an at home HIIT workout for 25-30 minutes. You could be correct on the storing fat instead of burning it because it is not getting enough fuel. I’ll have a look into increasing my daily calories.

I am in fact measuring my food. Each and every meal I have. Once I’ve reached my goal weight I plan to make it a lifestyle as I mentioned in my comment above. I’m aware it is a lifestyle, a marathon not a sprint which is why I’m currently trying to figure out the optimal way for me to go about with it. I think saying that I’m setting myself up for failure is a mild exaggeration. I never feel burnt out during the day and when it comes to my exercise I am able to give 100%. I must be a child trapped in an adults body? 😱 I think I could be setting myself up in a way that is not ideal for effective progress perhaps, but not failure.

Thanks for your insight.

Your body doesn't store fat because it's not getting enough fuel. If you were in a deficit you'd be losing weight. Measuring food is not necessarily weighing though. Do you have a food scale?

"Having said that your body may be storing fat instead of burning it because it is not getting enough fuel."
OP - ignore this comment as it's nonsensical.

Fat is an energy store, you don't add to your energy stores by being in an energy calorie) deficit, that would be like your car's fuel tank magically filling up while you are driving.


Nine days really isn't enough time to know if this is just a temporary blip in your progress, be more patient would be my advice. Don't judge your progress by days, look much further ahead.

sijomial wrote: »

"Having said that your body may be storing fat instead of burning it because it is not getting enough fuel."
OP - ignore this comment as it's nonsensical.

weight is made up of a number of factors and once people have exhausted their available carbohydrate reserves which likely won’t be much as they’re probably on a low carbohydrate diet, because of-course carbohydrates make you fat (eye roll), they will need an alternative fuel source and that’s when they’ll burn muscle. Callum Melly - personal trainer, online health coach and fitness influencer

Maybe not "store fat" but certainly not burn it. Judging by your restriction, you may be too low in your calories or within that calorie restriction you may be too high in carbohydrates.

Give it time. I'd suggest bumping to 1300 calories and focus on protein and fat versus carbs and make sure you get at least 8 cups ( 2 liters) of water a day. If you are like me and hate water by itself, add a little flavor like some concentrated lemon or lime juice (something unsweetened). Even cold brewed green tea is great...

Dilvish wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

"Having said that your body may be storing fat instead of burning it because it is not getting enough fuel."
OP - ignore this comment as it's nonsensical.

weight is made up of a number of factors and once people have exhausted their available carbohydrate reserves which likely won’t be much as they’re probably on a low carbohydrate diet, because of-course carbohydrates make you fat (eye roll), they will need an alternative fuel source and that’s when they’ll burn muscle. Callum Melly - personal trainer, online health coach and fitness influencer

Maybe not "store fat" but certainly not burn it. Judging by your restriction, you may be too low in your calories or within that calorie restriction you may be too high in carbohydrates.

Give it time. I'd suggest bumping to 1300 calories and focus on protein and fat versus carbs and make sure you get at least 8 cups ( 2 liters) of water a day. If you are like me and hate water by itself, add a little flavor like some concentrated lemon or lime juice (something unsweetened). Even cold brewed green tea is great...

If one's calorie deficit is not extreme, and especially in the context where one is consuming sufficient protein and getting some muscle-preserving exercise, the body will burn primarily fat to make up the calorie deficit.

That's the exact reason it bothered to store the fat in the first place: To supplement during times of famine. The ancient humans who burned muscle in preference to fat were eaten by large predators because they couldn't run or fight very well, so their genes were mostly left somewhere in the dust of history.

As a smallish female, 5'4", and a little older, 58, I have to drop down to 1,000 to 1,200 calories to lose weight. I make sure to take my vitamins and eat enough protein (16 oz/day) at that low calorie level. I also started weight training 2 to 3 times a week. Even when I don't lose weight my clothes are loser, my muscles are harder, and I am a lot stronger. When I hit those flat spots and I am doing everything right, I tell myself that if the weight comes off that slowly, it will also come back on that slowly. Maybe you deserve one cheat meal!

This is a bit of an aside to the OP (but not totally): As someone who is older (63 now, lost 50-ish pounds at 59-60), not too tall (5'5"), I'd observe that not everyone older, sedentary (outside of intentional exercise) and small-ish need go to 1200 net calories or below in order to lose weight, and I'd discourage anyone from quickly making that assumption because of a brief (< 3-4 week) stall on the scale.

I joined MFP part way through weight loss (when I realized I needed to track accurately), at 154 pounds (down from 183 at the start). MFP gave me 1200 calories as a goal, and I ate that plus my exercise calories (so 1400-1500 gross most days) . . . lost way too fast, got weak and fatigued, and it took weeks to recover normal strength/energy even though I corrected quickly as soon as I realized.

This is a good read:

https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/1200-calorie-diet/

Losing weight too slowly is very frustrating. Losing weight too fast is a health risk. Some people may need to go to 1200 calories to lose weight. But some who think they need to do that would be wiser not to.

Beyond health risk, cutting calories too far can be counterproductive for weight loss. (No, not "starvation mode makes your body hold onto fat": That's a complete myth.)

First, it's hard to get adequate nutrition on very low calories. Inadequate nutrition, in the medium to long run, is likely to have negative energy level and body composition consequences.

Second, severe calorie restriction increases risk of burning more than minimum muscle alongside fat; muscle is very slow and difficult to rebuild for smaller, older women, so best hang onto what we've got.

Third, over-restricting calories can lead to fatigue. Fatigue tends to sap calorie burn from daily life (because we rest more, put off chores that seem like a lot of effort, avoid energetic non-exercise hobbies, etc.). This leads to a lower daily-life calorie expenditure (NEAT). This can be pretty subtle. For most of us, NEAT (and NEAT-BMR) calories > exercise calories, so losing these isn't a good plan. While it won't stop weight loss when in a calorie deficit, reduced NEAT can certainly slow things down, not to mention create habits of inactivity that reduce energy expenditure long term.

Finally, undereating can cause underfueling of intentional exercise, in that we either reduce exercise intensity/duration, or simply skip workouts, so get less weight-management benefit from exercise.

Losing weight too fast, for most of us, is a Bad Plan. That's especially true for older, smaller women.

Younger women might consider the very long term consequences of yo-yo weight management, in which unsustainably low intake/increased exercise create burnout, leading to giving up and regaining. Every extreme dieting episode potentially loses unnecessarily much muscle (even if a small amount), and encourages habits of reduced daily life activity. Every regain episode tends to involve giving up (or materially reducing) exercise as well as increasing consumption, so the regain is likely to be mostly fat. Add to this that way too many women (not all) go for salad-heavy/low-protein weight loss strategies, and high-fat, high-carb, still low-protein regain. Repeat this nonsense enough times over decades, and you get higher body fat percent at any given weight, less fit/attractive appearance at any given weight, and a lower NEAT/TDEE than you might otherwise have had, making weight loss just that tiny bit harder in the long run.