Is weight loss really as simple as eating less?
Replies
-
davidparziale wrote: »@lynn_glenmont I realize the timeline is hard to follow. Some of the time periods I mentioned overlap. I began a fitness challenge this year at the beginning of January until the end of March. In the first 4 weeks, I lost 10 pounds. In the next 4 weeks, I only lost 5. Over the last 4 weeks of the challenge I tried cutting calories again and upping my cardio which didn't work. I haven't lost any weight in the last 6 weeks. My impatience during this phase was because of the competition.
How many different things have you done in the last six weeks? (i.e., how many different calorie levels, how many changes in exercise, etc.). It doesn't sound like you really are giving any thing long enough to assess what the results are before you jump to doing something different.14 -
So, I've made a handful of tweaks to my diet, (moderate carb, low carb, carb cycle, keto, more cardio) but the caloric deficit has been constant week after week. According to those who claim that caloric deficit is all that is needed for weight loss, I should have been losing for the past several weeks; hence my question: is a caloric deficit really all you need to burn fat?1
-
davidparziale wrote: »So, I've made a handful of tweaks to my diet, (moderate carb, low carb, carb cycle, keto, more cardio) but the caloric deficit has been constant week after week. According to those who claim that caloric deficit is all that is needed for weight loss, I should have been losing for the past several weeks; hence my question: is a caloric deficit really all you need to burn fat?
To answer your question, yes.
However other things can influence weight fluctuations like more water weight following changes to your exercise regime, sodium, changes in carb intake, stress etc., hence people's other questions about how long you try things for and what you have done over the last 4-6 weeks.15 -
Your caloric observations aren't valid because you've confirmed that you only use a food scale for meat. Based on prior comments posters have left, it seems to boil down to: 1) Eating more than you think, 2) Unrealistic expectations.24
-
ChrisCatMama wrote: »Another question: do you measure yourself? You could be gaining in muscle while losing fat.
Very unlikely to explain a stall.
Muscle gain is slow: Half a pound weekly would be a great rate for a man (half that for a woman), and that fast would normally require surplus calories and a serious progressive strength training program. (People often think they're gained because of quick big strength improvements from neuromuscular adaptation plus retained water weight for muscle repair.)
On the flip side, half a pound weekly would be about the slowest perceivable fat loss.
A realistic rate of muscle-mass gain is very unlikely to outpace any reasonable rate of fat loss.
I think OP is mismeasuring intake; maybe has over-restricted to the point of enough fatigue to reduce non-exercise calorie expenditure; and has jacked around with his routine enough that water-weight fluctuation is all over the place, obscuring what's going on. Just a guess, though.14 -
TLDR but OP.... I’m a 54 year old woman who weighs 140-146 and I lose weight on (an accurately tracked) diet of 1800 per day.8
-
ChrisCatMama wrote: »Another question: do you measure yourself? You could be gaining in muscle while losing fat.
Very unlikely to explain a stall.
Muscle gain is slow: Half a pound weekly would be a great rate for a man (half that for a woman), and that fast would normally require surplus calories and a serious progressive strength training program. (People often think they're gained because of quick big strength improvements from neuromuscular adaptation plus retained water weight for muscle repair.)
On the flip side, half a pound weekly would be about the slowest perceivable fat loss.
A realistic rate of muscle-mass gain is very unlikely to outpace any reasonable rate of fat loss.
I think OP is mismeasuring intake; maybe has over-restricted to the point of enough fatigue to reduce non-exercise calorie expenditure; and has jacked around with his routine enough that water-weight fluctuation is all over the place, obscuring what's going on. Just a guess, though.
Thumbs up to the bolded. We're talking a serious program, think Division 1 or professional sports offseason training intensity, not 3 sets of curls a could times a week between phone use at the gym.9 -
Weight loss is not directly correlated with fat loss because there is also water weight that goes up and down fairly quickly. If you want to go down crazy road, try weighing yourself several times a day.
If you consistently eat less than you burn you will lose fat.
This will become obvious over the months.
I think some of your frustration comes from trying to “eat clean” and very restrictively six days out of seven.
Sure, lean meats are good for you, with plenty of veggies and so on. But eat a little more, man. Still in a deficit of course.8 -
Have you been increasing your resistance weights? Could be muscle increase is cancelling fat loss. When I started a calorie deficit diet and exercising, the weight plunged for the first three months, then gradually slowed to almost, apparently, nothing (but my muscle gains were cancelling out the fat loss). This was on a 25% deficit (1500 calories as opposed to 2000).22
-
davidparziale wrote: »@lynn_glenmont I realize the timeline is hard to follow. Some of the time periods I mentioned overlap. I began a fitness challenge this year at the beginning of January until the end of March. In the first 4 weeks, I lost 10 pounds. In the next 4 weeks, I only lost 5. Over the last 4 weeks of the challenge I tried cutting calories again and upping my cardio which didn't work. I haven't lost any weight in the last 6 weeks. My impatience during this phase was because of the competition.
You said your deficit (1800) should lead to 1.2 lb/week. You started with over 2 lb/week (normal for beginning), and then lost 5 lb in 4 weeks, or 1.25 lb/week. Then you for some reason cut calories and upped cardio, which likely caused a water weight increase and might have messed with your plan in other ways (if you have a cheat day, cutting cals too low can lead to more uncontrolled eating and excess on the cheat day, or more water weight fluctuations).
I would go back to the 1800 that was working initially and focus on accurate logging. I would also set some workout goals that seem sustainable and focus on them rather than merely on weight loss (very often it helps to think in terms of a longterm healthy lifestyle and not on the specific losses -- helps with patience). Give it 4 more weeks (no "cheat" days, but if you want to work in a higher cal day weekly budget for it by cutting 100 cals more on each other day and count the cals on the cheat day), and I suspect you will see losses again. If not, at that point lower cals if necessary, but that seems unlikely.
The stress, on your body and otherwise, is probably contributing to water retention at the moment.10 -
Also, you say you’ve lost 15 pounds in 3 months (which is about 7kg); on a 25% deficit I usually shed 2 kg every month, so your numbers actually seem to be what I would expect over a three month period. I think you’re expecting too much, too soon. Healthy weight loss is, cliche approaching, a marathon and not a sprint.7
-
I have lost weight using several different macro settings including keto and moderate/high carb. The consistent thing was eating less calories than I burn.
Exercise can mask weight loss for weeks. Literally.
And if you don't want to weigh everything on your scale (I definitely do not, que the woo's) that may be fine but at least weigh your more calorie dense items like nuts, nut butter, etc. One of the first things we should check when not losing is if we are eating the amount that we think.
Choosing correct food entries is important and it's very easy to pick a bad one. I've been logging for 5 years and still may find an entry that is incorrect in my diary.
Most importantly, consistency and patience. Weight loss isn't fast.9 -
If you log accurately, get good sensible nutrition with a variety of foods and a reasonable amount of protein and fat and if you stick to your calorie goal (I'd try around 2000) for a couple months you will see results.
The food scans are often wrong.
You say you're eating "about" 1800. "About" isn't good enough.
You've lost a consistent amount of weight in the past few months.
Weight loss isn't linear. There WILL be weeks when the scale doesn't show a loss. Stay the course.
Lower expectations and be consistent.13 -
davidparziale wrote: »So, I've made a handful of tweaks to my diet, (moderate carb, low carb, carb cycle, keto, more cardio) but the caloric deficit has been constant week after week. According to those who claim that caloric deficit is all that is needed for weight loss, I should have been losing for the past several weeks; hence my question: is a caloric deficit really all you need to burn fat?
Calorie deficit is all that is needed for FAT loss. The scale doesn't just measure the weight of your fat, it's also weighing all the other stuff in your body. That other stuff is like 75% of your scale weight. Every time you change your diet or exercise, even slightly, it can cause shifts in your water weight and digestive time. These fluctuations can cause your weight to go up and down, essentially covering up fat loss.
Your fat loss also doesn't immediately react to a calorie deficit. Your body is constantly storing some fat and burning some fat as needed, regardless of what you specifically ate today. Fat loss doesn't correlate to calorie deficit on a daily basis, it happens over time. If you eat at a perfect 500 calorie deficit every day for 12 weeks, you will probably not lose 1 lb every week, 1/7 of a lb every day, but at the end of the 12 weeks, you will have lost around 12 lbs of fat. Whether that approx 12 lbs is seen exactly on your scale will depend on your water and digestive weight on that day.
Add to all that the fact that you aren't using a food scale for a lot of stuff. It sounds to me like more accurate logging, more patience, and a longer term view will take care of this for you
17 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »
Let go of the cruel myth that weight loss is all about cutting calories and find the calorie sources that works best for your health so body weight has a chance to automatically regulate. I think you to may come to realize the need to count calories to lose/maintain weight is often due to some prior health failure(s) that first need to be addressed before weight loss can become autoregulated once again. Most all animals can become obese eating the wrong macros and humans are no different.
This is irresponsible advice and defies science.
35 -
Thanks again for the advice, everybody! I'd like to address the measurement issue because that's been the most common explanation brought up. Keep in mind, at 1500-1600 calories consumed per day (at my lowest) combined with a 2300 calorie maintenance level and 30-45 minutes of intense cardio (Insanity by Beachbody) at my height and weight, with an average heartrate of 170 bpm, I should have burned an extra 600-800 calories daily. My daily deficit would be between 1300 and 1700 calories on workout days (5x per week) At the time, I was only eating eggs, ground turkey (weighed) boneless skinless chicken breast (weighed) lean beef (weighed) and mixed vegetables, broccoli, or spinach (measured) so unless the difference between measuring four one-cup servings of vegetables and weighing those same vegetables could account for 1300 to 1700 EXTRA calories per day, I don't see how inaccurate my calorie counts during those four weeks of stalled fat loss could be.
Additionally, I weigh myself, measure myself, and take handheld body composition scans to track my progress.
Note: over the past few months, I have experienced strength gains in the gym regardless of body mass calculations.5 -
davidparziale wrote: »Thanks again for the advice, everybody! I'd like to address the measurement issue because that's been the most common explanation brought up. Keep in mind, at 1500-1600 calories consumed per day (at my lowest) combined with a 2300 calorie maintenance level and 30-45 minutes of intense cardio (Insanity by Beachbody) at my height and weight, with an average heartrate of 170 bpm, I should have burned an extra 600-800 calories daily. My daily deficit would be between 1300 and 1700 calories on workout days (5x per week) At the time, I was only eating eggs, ground turkey (weighed) boneless skinless chicken breast (weighed) lean beef (weighed) and mixed vegetables, broccoli, or spinach (measured) so unless the difference between measuring four one-cup servings of vegetables and weighing those same vegetables could account for 1300 to 1700 EXTRA calories per day, I don't see how inaccurate my calorie counts during those four weeks of stalled fat loss could be.
Additionally, I weigh myself, measure myself, and take handheld body composition scans to track my progress.
Note: over the past few months, I have experienced strength gains in the gym regardless of body mass calculations.
Where did you get those numbers from?9 -
davidparziale wrote: »Thanks again for the advice, everybody! I'd like to address the measurement issue because that's been the most common explanation brought up. Keep in mind, at 1500-1600 calories consumed per day (at my lowest) combined with a 2300 calorie maintenance level and 30-45 minutes of intense cardio (Insanity by Beachbody) at my height and weight, with an average heartrate of 170 bpm, I should have burned an extra 600-800 calories daily. My daily deficit would be between 1300 and 1700 calories on workout days (5x per week) At the time, I was only eating eggs, ground turkey (weighed) boneless skinless chicken breast (weighed) lean beef (weighed) and mixed vegetables, broccoli, or spinach (measured) so unless the difference between measuring four one-cup servings of vegetables and weighing those same vegetables could account for 1300 to 1700 EXTRA calories per day, I don't see how inaccurate my calorie counts during those four weeks of stalled fat loss could be.
Additionally, I weigh myself, measure myself, and take handheld body composition scans to track my progress.
Note: over the past few months, I have experienced strength gains in the gym regardless of body mass calculations.
Did you read the article about weight fluctuations I linked for you? New exercise has been known to make people retain water for an extended period of time.
Did you see where I said it can take 3 weeks for me to see a new low weight? This has been happening to me pretty regularly for the over 150 pounds that I have lost.
You absolutely have to stop trying to strangle results. Relax and find a lane. Stress over weight can increase your cortisol and, surprise, it can also make you retain water.
14 -
davidparziale wrote: »Thanks again for the advice, everybody! I'd like to address the measurement issue because that's been the most common explanation brought up. Keep in mind, at 1500-1600 calories consumed per day (at my lowest) combined with a 2300 calorie maintenance level and 30-45 minutes of intense cardio (Insanity by Beachbody) at my height and weight, with an average heartrate of 170 bpm, I should have burned an extra 600-800 calories daily. My daily deficit would be between 1300 and 1700 calories on workout days (5x per week) At the time, I was only eating eggs, ground turkey (weighed) boneless skinless chicken breast (weighed) lean beef (weighed) and mixed vegetables, broccoli, or spinach (measured) so unless the difference between measuring four one-cup servings of vegetables and weighing those same vegetables could account for 1300 to 1700 EXTRA calories per day, I don't see how inaccurate my calorie counts during those four weeks of stalled fat loss could be.
Additionally, I weigh myself, measure myself, and take handheld body composition scans to track my progress.
Note: over the past few months, I have experienced strength gains in the gym regardless of body mass calculations.
There are a lot of estimates in there, and the exercise ones have a lot of potential to be wrong.
I assume you know strength gains can be from neuromuscular adaptation (particularly in early stages), not just muscle mass gain. The NMA ones are much faster.
And that water weight, frequent switch-ups of routine, stress/cortisol, early over-restriction kind of thing. Yeah.
You may in fact have some medical anomaly limiting your weight loss. But you haven't done this in a way that gives you very good data to assess that, so far, I'm sorry to say.9 -
You went to see a large drop in your weight?
Sit at home without exercise for three+ days (but do walk frequently for a total of over 5,000 steps a day). Eat your MFP calories for weight loss from sedentary accurately counted. Keep sodium to below where you were at, or below 3000, whichever is lower. Limit carbs to less than 75g a day. Take a dose or two of a stool softener. Consume adequate hydration and at least 0.4g of fat per lb of body weight.
And you will see the scale move down.
And almost NONE of this "weight loss" will be fat reserves leaving your body.
By the way, I think that doing any/most of all this for the purpose of manipulating your weight is stupid. So no, you should not actually do it!18
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions