HELP ME - WHAT AM I DOING WRONG??
Options
Replies
-
Tracie_Lord wrote: »njitaliana wrote: »Congrats on your weight loss!
I don't think you are necessarily doing anything wrong. Sometimes, our bodies stop losing at a certain point. I once lost 126 lbs, and around the time I hit 90 lbs off, I plateaued for a whole year. I tried everything, and finally had to switch to a horribly restrictive diet to get 30 more lbs off. I ended up giving up because I couldn't keep restricting myself to continue losing. I gained my weight back.
Now I see a dietitian regularly. She is a godsend. She goes over my MFP diary entries, makes suggestions, and has really helped me. Maybe you could try a dietitian in addition to your PT. It might help you figure out which changes to make, like it did with me. I have 62 lbs off now and I'm finding it so much easier since I have my dietitian's help.
thank you and well done you on your journey that's amazing.
It sounds like I'm where you were then. Can I ask do you track macros? Do you work out?
No one can seem to tell me what the macros should be for losing weight whilst being active (I gym 4-7 times a week).
General consensus is PROTEIN 40% FATS 20% CARBS 40% but your right I think I need a dietician to confirm this for my body and my lifestyle
The reason that 'nobody can tell you' what the macros should be for losing weight while being active is that they're irrelevant. Calories are all that matters for weight loss, so as long as you're getting the minimum of protein and fat, go with whatever macro breakdown works for your body. Although if you really want someone to tell you what to do, there are plenty of people out there who will happily take your money and give you some brand of woo in return.
(Like your PT's advice to up your calories in order to lose weight, which is against all the laws of gods and men and also physics. If you're not losing weight that means you're not in a deficit, so something about your logging of food and exercise is out. How many calories are you going over on your cheat day, and what is your daily deficit?)21 -
What's also important to note: calorie burns from sports are generally not very high. An hour of weight lifting might only burn a few calories. Running outside burns about 0.67x weight in lbs x distance in miles (and 0.3 x weight x distance for walking). It's probably a bit less on a treadmill because you don't need to propel yourself forward, there's no wind and no little unevenness in the ground. And even less on a cross trainer as you're not even jumping up yourself or lifting up your legs.12
-
Tracie_Lord wrote: »njitaliana wrote: »Congrats on your weight loss!
I don't think you are necessarily doing anything wrong. Sometimes, our bodies stop losing at a certain point. I once lost 126 lbs, and around the time I hit 90 lbs off, I plateaued for a whole year. I tried everything, and finally had to switch to a horribly restrictive diet to get 30 more lbs off. I ended up giving up because I couldn't keep restricting myself to continue losing. I gained my weight back.
Now I see a dietitian regularly. She is a godsend. She goes over my MFP diary entries, makes suggestions, and has really helped me. Maybe you could try a dietitian in addition to your PT. It might help you figure out which changes to make, like it did with me. I have 62 lbs off now and I'm finding it so much easier since I have my dietitian's help.
thank you and well done you on your journey that's amazing.
It sounds like I'm where you were then. Can I ask do you track macros? Do you work out?
No one can seem to tell me what the macros should be for losing weight whilst being active (I gym 4-7 times a week).
General consensus is PROTEIN 40% FATS 20% CARBS 40% but your right I think I need a dietician to confirm this for my body and my lifestyle
That's because there isn't a macro split for weight loss. Weight loss is down to calories, macro split is for personal preference, satiety and adherance. As long as you get the minimum recommended daily intake for protein and fat you can let the rest fall where it may, whether that be higher protein, higher fat or higher carbs.14 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »Tracie_Lord wrote: »njitaliana wrote: »Congrats on your weight loss!
I don't think you are necessarily doing anything wrong. Sometimes, our bodies stop losing at a certain point. I once lost 126 lbs, and around the time I hit 90 lbs off, I plateaued for a whole year. I tried everything, and finally had to switch to a horribly restrictive diet to get 30 more lbs off. I ended up giving up because I couldn't keep restricting myself to continue losing. I gained my weight back.
Now I see a dietitian regularly. She is a godsend. She goes over my MFP diary entries, makes suggestions, and has really helped me. Maybe you could try a dietitian in addition to your PT. It might help you figure out which changes to make, like it did with me. I have 62 lbs off now and I'm finding it so much easier since I have my dietitian's help.
thank you and well done you on your journey that's amazing.
It sounds like I'm where you were then. Can I ask do you track macros? Do you work out?
No one can seem to tell me what the macros should be for losing weight whilst being active (I gym 4-7 times a week).
General consensus is PROTEIN 40% FATS 20% CARBS 40% but your right I think I need a dietician to confirm this for my body and my lifestyle
That's because there isn't a macro split for weight loss. Weight loss is down to calories, macro split is for personal preference, satiety and adherance. As long as you get the minimum recommended daily intake for protein and fat you can let the rest fall where it may, whether that be higher protein, higher fat or higher carbs.
^^ agreed3 -
Y'know, maybe I'm just a weirdo, but I don't agree that macro split is completely irrelevant for weight loss, especially in a scenario - as with the OP - where a person has been at a calorie deficit for a year.
I'm not talking about fiddly details, or even just about satiety/compliance: I'm talking about nutrition. I'm also not deprecating calories as the most vital key for weight loss, because they are that.
A calorie deficit creates stress on a person's body, unavoidably (not saying it isn't worth it). And under-nutrition will come home to roost, eventually, in reduced energy level if nothing else (and reduced energy has calorie-burn implications). Combining a calorie deficit with under-nutrition seems likely to make that "home to roost" show up faster. (How weight loss would be affected might vary by individual, but it just seems like it could matter.)
Nutrition is important, especially in the longer run. I'm not talking about hyper-precise macros here, but just decent all-round nutrition: Enough protein, enough fats, lots of nice veggies/fruits, ideally. Looking at diaries around here, it's not infrequent to see suboptimal strategies.
Weight loss, for many/most people, is going to have the biggest payoff in improved health. But in the long run, nutrition matters for health and energy level.11 -
Y'know, maybe I'm just a weirdo, but I don't agree that macro split is completely irrelevant for weight loss, especially in a scenario - as with the OP - where a person has been at a calorie deficit for a year.
I'm not talking about fiddly details, or even just about satiety/compliance: I'm talking about nutrition. I'm also not deprecating calories as the most vital key for weight loss, because they are that.
A calorie deficit creates stress on a person's body, unavoidably (not saying it isn't worth it). And under-nutrition will come home to roost, eventually, in reduced energy level if nothing else (and reduced energy has calorie-burn implications). Combining a calorie deficit with under-nutrition seems likely to make that "home to roost" show up faster. (How weight loss would be affected might vary by individual, but it just seems like it could matter.)
Nutrition is important, especially in the longer run. I'm not talking about hyper-precise macros here, but just decent all-round nutrition: Enough protein, enough fats, lots of nice veggies/fruits, ideally. Looking at diaries around here, it's not infrequent to see suboptimal strategies.
Weight loss, for many/most people, is going to have the biggest payoff in improved health. But in the long run, nutrition matters for health and energy level.
This is where my head is. My BMI says overweight but to look at me I'm not in all honestly. I have muscle mass but I have stubborn fat areas that I would like to shift - I need to get my fat % I think.
My new gym programmes are to tone/lose weight so I'm certain the extra calories are to feed those more intense workouts, especially the floor work and weights. Last I took measurements to start to look at that and not just the scales.
What I am finding so strange is the differing opinions so I guess all I can do is be in the moment, do what I know works for me with the small changes recommended by my PT.
Got to say on day 2 and the 'extra' food/calories seems a lot compared to what I was used to but I guess its just the change2 -
Tracie_Lord wrote: »Y'know, maybe I'm just a weirdo, but I don't agree that macro split is completely irrelevant for weight loss, especially in a scenario - as with the OP - where a person has been at a calorie deficit for a year.
I'm not talking about fiddly details, or even just about satiety/compliance: I'm talking about nutrition. I'm also not deprecating calories as the most vital key for weight loss, because they are that.
A calorie deficit creates stress on a person's body, unavoidably (not saying it isn't worth it). And under-nutrition will come home to roost, eventually, in reduced energy level if nothing else (and reduced energy has calorie-burn implications). Combining a calorie deficit with under-nutrition seems likely to make that "home to roost" show up faster. (How weight loss would be affected might vary by individual, but it just seems like it could matter.)
Nutrition is important, especially in the longer run. I'm not talking about hyper-precise macros here, but just decent all-round nutrition: Enough protein, enough fats, lots of nice veggies/fruits, ideally. Looking at diaries around here, it's not infrequent to see suboptimal strategies.
Weight loss, for many/most people, is going to have the biggest payoff in improved health. But in the long run, nutrition matters for health and energy level.
This is where my head is. My BMI says overweight but to look at me I'm not in all honestly. I have muscle mass but I have stubborn fat areas that I would like to shift - I need to get my fat % I think.
My new gym programmes are to tone/lose weight so I'm certain the extra calories are to feed those more intense workouts, especially the floor work and weights. Last I took measurements to start to look at that and not just the scales.
What I am finding so strange is the differing opinions so I guess all I can do is be in the moment, do what I know works for me with the small changes recommended by my PT.
Got to say on day 2 and the 'extra' food/calories seems a lot compared to what I was used to but I guess its just the change
Noone is saying nutrition isn't important, what they are saying is there isn't a one size fits all for weight loss.
Over and above getting in what you need to for health, it's a personal preference and whatever will help you adhere best to managing your weight whether that be losing/maintaining/gaining.
It'd be no good you doing whatever someone told you, if you didn't find it filling or if it affected your energy levels in a negative way and finding it more difficult to manage your weight. So you just need to find a starting point (MFP's default macros are generally fine) and tweak from there to find what works for you.
7 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »Tracie_Lord wrote: »Y'know, maybe I'm just a weirdo, but I don't agree that macro split is completely irrelevant for weight loss, especially in a scenario - as with the OP - where a person has been at a calorie deficit for a year.
I'm not talking about fiddly details, or even just about satiety/compliance: I'm talking about nutrition. I'm also not deprecating calories as the most vital key for weight loss, because they are that.
A calorie deficit creates stress on a person's body, unavoidably (not saying it isn't worth it). And under-nutrition will come home to roost, eventually, in reduced energy level if nothing else (and reduced energy has calorie-burn implications). Combining a calorie deficit with under-nutrition seems likely to make that "home to roost" show up faster. (How weight loss would be affected might vary by individual, but it just seems like it could matter.)
Nutrition is important, especially in the longer run. I'm not talking about hyper-precise macros here, but just decent all-round nutrition: Enough protein, enough fats, lots of nice veggies/fruits, ideally. Looking at diaries around here, it's not infrequent to see suboptimal strategies.
Weight loss, for many/most people, is going to have the biggest payoff in improved health. But in the long run, nutrition matters for health and energy level.
This is where my head is. My BMI says overweight but to look at me I'm not in all honestly. I have muscle mass but I have stubborn fat areas that I would like to shift - I need to get my fat % I think.
My new gym programmes are to tone/lose weight so I'm certain the extra calories are to feed those more intense workouts, especially the floor work and weights. Last I took measurements to start to look at that and not just the scales.
What I am finding so strange is the differing opinions so I guess all I can do is be in the moment, do what I know works for me with the small changes recommended by my PT.
Got to say on day 2 and the 'extra' food/calories seems a lot compared to what I was used to but I guess its just the change
Noone is saying nutrition isn't important, what they are saying is there isn't a one size fits all for weight loss.
Over and above getting in what you need to for health, it's a personal preference and whatever will help you adhere best to managing your weight whether that be losing/maintaining/gaining.
It'd be no good you doing whatever someone told you, if you didn't find it filling or if it affected your energy levels in a negative way and finding it more difficult to manage your weight. So you just need to find a starting point (MFP's default macros are generally fine) and tweak from there to find what works for you.
Absolutely agree, which is why I embrace all the differing opinions. What I find strange is that certain people genuinely believe their way is the only way and are so so certain on it, however I thing you are 100% correct that its what works for the individual.
I believe help/advice/opinions are all sources of information that we choose to take or not until we find the right path3 -
Oh my friend I went through exactly the same thing. First year I lost a ton second year 20 lbs. I stalled for three months and finally did the diet break. Remember you are 100 lbs. lighter so the last pounds take longer to lose as you have less weight to move around so even your exercise is worth less calorie wise. But CONGRATULATIONS on losing 100 lbs! That's a huge accomplishment and you should be proud. Be patient for the rest. It takes much longer to lose a pound when you get closer to goal. Keep doing what you are doing but consider eating at maintenance for a couple weeks to give your body the push to start losing again. It also gives you a break and helps you see that you can maintain. I found it encouraging when I did it. Before that I was worried I would never maintain my loss. Good Luck.6
-
Tracie_Lord wrote: »Y'know, maybe I'm just a weirdo, but I don't agree that macro split is completely irrelevant for weight loss, especially in a scenario - as with the OP - where a person has been at a calorie deficit for a year.
I'm not talking about fiddly details, or even just about satiety/compliance: I'm talking about nutrition. I'm also not deprecating calories as the most vital key for weight loss, because they are that.
A calorie deficit creates stress on a person's body, unavoidably (not saying it isn't worth it). And under-nutrition will come home to roost, eventually, in reduced energy level if nothing else (and reduced energy has calorie-burn implications). Combining a calorie deficit with under-nutrition seems likely to make that "home to roost" show up faster. (How weight loss would be affected might vary by individual, but it just seems like it could matter.)
Nutrition is important, especially in the longer run. I'm not talking about hyper-precise macros here, but just decent all-round nutrition: Enough protein, enough fats, lots of nice veggies/fruits, ideally. Looking at diaries around here, it's not infrequent to see suboptimal strategies.
Weight loss, for many/most people, is going to have the biggest payoff in improved health. But in the long run, nutrition matters for health and energy level.
This is where my head is. My BMI says overweight but to look at me I'm not in all honestly. I have muscle mass but I have stubborn fat areas that I would like to shift - I need to get my fat % I think.
My new gym programmes are to tone/lose weight so I'm certain the extra calories are to feed those more intense workouts, especially the floor work and weights. Last I took measurements to start to look at that and not just the scales.
What I am finding so strange is the differing opinions so I guess all I can do is be in the moment, do what I know works for me with the small changes recommended by my PT.
Got to say on day 2 and the 'extra' food/calories seems a lot compared to what I was used to but I guess its just the change
Honey do what works for you. Be patient also, as it may take some time..You will achieve your goal. Remain healthy in the midst...✌🌷1 -
cheryldumais wrote: »Oh my friend I went through exactly the same thing. First year I lost a ton second year 20 lbs. I stalled for three months and finally did the diet break. Remember you are 100 lbs. lighter so the last pounds take longer to lose as you have less weight to move around so even your exercise is worth less calorie wise. But CONGRATULATIONS on losing 100 lbs! That's a huge accomplishment and you should be proud. Be patient for the rest. It takes much longer to lose a pound when you get closer to goal. Keep doing what you are doing but consider eating at maintenance for a couple weeks to give your body the push to start losing again. It also gives you a break and helps you see that you can maintain. I found it encouraging when I did it. Before that I was worried I would never maintain my loss. Good Luck.
Thank you.
Upped my intake quite dramatically so expect possibly even a gain in weight, muscle mass over next 4-6 weeks but started measuring too so hopefully will see the difference there5 -
lleeann2001 wrote: »Tracie_Lord wrote: »Y'know, maybe I'm just a weirdo, but I don't agree that macro split is completely irrelevant for weight loss, especially in a scenario - as with the OP - where a person has been at a calorie deficit for a year.
I'm not talking about fiddly details, or even just about satiety/compliance: I'm talking about nutrition. I'm also not deprecating calories as the most vital key for weight loss, because they are that.
A calorie deficit creates stress on a person's body, unavoidably (not saying it isn't worth it). And under-nutrition will come home to roost, eventually, in reduced energy level if nothing else (and reduced energy has calorie-burn implications). Combining a calorie deficit with under-nutrition seems likely to make that "home to roost" show up faster. (How weight loss would be affected might vary by individual, but it just seems like it could matter.)
Nutrition is important, especially in the longer run. I'm not talking about hyper-precise macros here, but just decent all-round nutrition: Enough protein, enough fats, lots of nice veggies/fruits, ideally. Looking at diaries around here, it's not infrequent to see suboptimal strategies.
Weight loss, for many/most people, is going to have the biggest payoff in improved health. But in the long run, nutrition matters for health and energy level.
This is where my head is. My BMI says overweight but to look at me I'm not in all honestly. I have muscle mass but I have stubborn fat areas that I would like to shift - I need to get my fat % I think.
My new gym programmes are to tone/lose weight so I'm certain the extra calories are to feed those more intense workouts, especially the floor work and weights. Last I took measurements to start to look at that and not just the scales.
What I am finding so strange is the differing opinions so I guess all I can do is be in the moment, do what I know works for me with the small changes recommended by my PT.
Got to say on day 2 and the 'extra' food/calories seems a lot compared to what I was used to but I guess its just the change
Honey do what works for you. Be patient also, as it may take some time. You will achieve your goal. Remain healthy in the midst...✌🌷
Thank you
Agree whole heartedly, health and nutrition is always my goal as it just simply makes you feel better 1 -
Yup, I gained a couple pounds on my diet break but it came back off in a week or two then I started losing again very slowly. I was terrified the whole time I would gain all the weight back but I've maintained for over a year now so it was worth it in the end. Good luck.3
-
Tracie_Lord wrote: »njitaliana wrote: »Congrats on your weight loss!
I don't think you are necessarily doing anything wrong. Sometimes, our bodies stop losing at a certain point. I once lost 126 lbs, and around the time I hit 90 lbs off, I plateaued for a whole year. I tried everything, and finally had to switch to a horribly restrictive diet to get 30 more lbs off. I ended up giving up because I couldn't keep restricting myself to continue losing. I gained my weight back.
Now I see a dietitian regularly. She is a godsend. She goes over my MFP diary entries, makes suggestions, and has really helped me. Maybe you could try a dietitian in addition to your PT. It might help you figure out which changes to make, like it did with me. I have 62 lbs off now and I'm finding it so much easier since I have my dietitian's help.
thank you and well done you on your journey that's amazing.
It sounds like I'm where you were then. Can I ask do you track macros? Do you work out?
No one can seem to tell me what the macros should be for losing weight whilst being active (I gym 4-7 times a week).
General consensus is PROTEIN 40% FATS 20% CARBS 40% but your right I think I need a dietician to confirm this for my body and my lifestyle
There is no set macros split for weight loss. You would lose weight on any split that created a calorie deficit. However, macros affect satiety individually, and thus your compliance will be better on a split that works for you.
Only your body can tell you the proper macro split for you. There are successful active vegans here eating upwards of 60 % carbs and successful active ketoers eating less than 5 % carbs.8 -
Tracie_Lord wrote: »cheryldumais wrote: »Oh my friend I went through exactly the same thing. First year I lost a ton second year 20 lbs. I stalled for three months and finally did the diet break. Remember you are 100 lbs. lighter so the last pounds take longer to lose as you have less weight to move around so even your exercise is worth less calorie wise. But CONGRATULATIONS on losing 100 lbs! That's a huge accomplishment and you should be proud. Be patient for the rest. It takes much longer to lose a pound when you get closer to goal. Keep doing what you are doing but consider eating at maintenance for a couple weeks to give your body the push to start losing again. It also gives you a break and helps you see that you can maintain. I found it encouraging when I did it. Before that I was worried I would never maintain my loss. Good Luck.
Thank you.
Upped my intake quite dramatically so expect possibly even a gain in weight, muscle mass over next 4-6 weeks but started measuring too so hopefully will see the difference there
Sadly, maximum muscle mass gain for a woman is going to be pretty small, over a mere 6 weeks - unlikely, too, if still in a calorie deficit, and slower than any reasonable rate of fat loss, so won't explain scale gain in those circumstances.17 -
@AnnPT77 @skama2001 I am almost always in a calorie deficit, except maybe 1 day a week
This is why I have started looking at other options.
This week for example I have been in calorie deficit 300-700 every day except Saturday and I am 0.75lbs up (nothing a know)
I have increased intake and increased work out intensity (cardio and weights)
All I can do I find what works for my next steps.
I am not big. I am 5'11 and UK size 12/14 so US 10/12 - so I do need to work harder if I want to lose more, my BMI (which I know is a population method) is 27
Thanks for all the comments I really appreciate it6 -
If you are consistently gaining weight or plateauing, then you are by definition not in a calorie deficit.
I can't remember whether you said how you're logging your food and choosing your DB entries?10 -
If you are consistently gaining weight or plateauing, then you are by definition not in a calorie deficit.
I can't remember whether you said how you're logging your food and choosing your DB entries?
I log everything and am very careful - always over log if I am unsure on anything
I also once thought as you did but the truth is I don't think it is that simple and I say that from experience.
Everyone is different.
Thanks for the input though 17 -
Tracie_Lord wrote: »If you are consistently gaining weight or plateauing, then you are by definition not in a calorie deficit.
I can't remember whether you said how you're logging your food and choosing your DB entries?
I log everything and am very careful - always over log if I am unsure on anything
I also once thought as you did but the truth is I don't think it is that simple and I say that from experience.
Everyone is different.
Thanks for the input though
Everyone in similar positions to yours always claims they log everything accurately. 90% of the time, when they open their diaries that turns out not to be the case.
You may be one of the other 10%, or you may not. I will be interested to know whether increasing your intake alone, without changing up anything else, results in weight loss.12 -
Tracie_Lord wrote: »If you are consistently gaining weight or plateauing, then you are by definition not in a calorie deficit.
I can't remember whether you said how you're logging your food and choosing your DB entries?
I log everything and am very careful - always over log if I am unsure on anything
I also once thought as you did but the truth is I don't think it is that simple and I say that from experience.
Everyone is different.
Thanks for the input though
Everyone in similar positions to yours always claims they log everything accurately. 90% of the time, when they open their diaries that turns out not to be the case.
You may be one of the other 10%, or you may not. I will be interested to know whether increasing your intake alone, without changing up anything else, results in weight loss.
@ceiswyn I don't claim I tell the truth, why would I lie to myself it makes no sense
I don't know you and you don't know me so your opinion of me is irrelevant to me but thank you for your input when I openly asked for advice
Feedback is a gift and I appreciate you sharing how you perceive me
I have upped my intake AND upped my training programme, I see the both go hand in hand and I took the advice from a PT face to face as I have stated in this thread
17
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions