I can't seem to lose any weight

Apart from potential logging issues - it could also be some bloating/water retention from the new exercise or that time of the month, tbh. It's only been 2 weeks, it sounds a bit early to judge, especially if you've made a lot of changes in your activity level (I know if I start a new/intense workout routine my weight initially jumps up a pound or two, then drops down again - not sure if you've maybe experienced the same before?)
But definitely a good idea to double check the entries you're using, could be accidentally adding 50kcal here, 100kcal there, etc.
Or - you (or MFP) could be overestimating the calories burned through exercise. I know for me it's usually fairly accurate but some people only eat back a portion of them.

Curlywurlyjo74 wrote: »

Are you drinking enough water? You need to be drinking 2000ml to 3000ml a day, the water helps with weight loss, if you are dehydrated you'll have problems shifting the weight.

That's not true at all. Being properly hydrated is important but has no direct affect on weight loss and there is no minimum of water people need to drink. You can hydrate from various sources including the food you eat.

Curlywurlyjo74 wrote: »

Also, if you do not drink enough water, the food's nutrients will not go to other body parts. Water helps in the digestion of food and consequently, help burn more calories. This will lead to losing fat.

So basically, drinking water IS very important

There really are only two things one can do with food in the body: Digest it, or excrete it. If something "helps in digestion", that would suggest absorbing more calories from the food, not fewer. The number of calories it takes a body to do the actual digestion process is quite small, a minor fraction of the calories actually in that food. In that context, even if water "helps in the digestion of food", it seems like that would be more detrimental than helpful to weight loss. **

Clearly, we do need water, and a rational amount of it is good for us. The water in any beverage contributes to hydration, as does the (quite significant) water in fruits, veggies, soups, etc. There's no X number of ounces that's required by everyone, of every body size, of every activity level (vigorous endurance athletics vs. couch-sitting), in every climate (hot, cool, dry, humid).

Other factors folks have mentioned are much more probable and potentially larger contributors to weight loss or the lack thereof. As long as a person's urine is pale yellow, they're almost certainly adequately hydrated.

I second Snowflake's question.

** P.S. I don't think adequate hydration is detrimental to weight loss. I think the whole idea of it being a big deal in the weight loss picture at all is inaccurate, as long as we're not talking about someone who's doing something blatantly stupid. It's certainly possible to be dangerously dehydrated. It's also possible to be dangerously over-hydrated. Either of those extremes is a bad plan for health, and at a very extreme extreme, both are potentially deadly. That would be stupid.

Healthline?? Seriously? A clickbait article that does not demonstrate proof but uses terms like "may" or "is associated with" weight loss? Mostly lower participant, low quality studies used for reference and one of them concludes this:

RESULTS:
Energy expenditure did not increase after drinking either distilled water (P = 0.34) or 0.9% saline (P = 0.33). Drinking the 7% sucrose solution significantly increased energy expenditure (P < 0.0001). Drinking water that had been cooled to 3 C caused a small increase in energy expenditure of 4.5% over 60 min (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS:
Drinking distilled water at room temperature did not increase energy expenditure. Cooling the water before drinking only stimulated a small thermogenic response, well below the theoretical energy cost of warming the water to body temperature. These results cast doubt on water as a thermogenic agent for the management of obesity.

For clickbait pubs like Healthline, a writer is given or chooses an article topic and then goes in search of studies that may support the preformed topic. Not exactly a scientific method. Not something you see at The New England Journal of Medicine or The European Journal of Clinical Nutrition or the Journal of The International Society of Sports Nutrition.

Lietchi wrote: »

Provided your logging is accurate, 1200-1300 calories sounds low. I'm slightly older than you, same height, I weigh 18 lbs less than you and I'm eating at least 500 calories more than you a day, sometimes even 1000 calories more.
I'm guessing you've chosen a more aggressive weight loss rate than me, and aren't eating back your exercise calories, which doesn't sound sustainable. (Heck, I couldn't eat that little even for a week)

As for the scale not moving, I would guess it's water weight from the increased exercise. Two weeks isn't very long either, patience is important.

I agree - I am 36, 5'5" and started at 200lbs eating ~1780cal. It took me about 2-4 weeks to see the scale budge, but then I started losing an average of .5/week (I wanted to go slow) and over the course of a year lost 30lbs. I didn't even lower my calories for weight loss. I have been maintaining and VERY SLOWLY slowly losing at ~1880cal for about 6 months (170-168lbs).

I have had some plateaus along the way and here are things I have noticed in my journey:

-When I work out too much I don't lose weight. For me, ideal for weight loss is 3-4days/week. I love exercising, so when I am on xmas vacation I go to the gym every day! Despite being super careful with calories I wouldn't lose weight. Then I'd go to my parents, not have access to the gym, eat more food, and lose a pound... Currently I am building muscle. I am exercising a lot. I am getting smaller in my clothes and more muscular definition but the scale isn't budging. I'm OK with that. [FYI I always eat back my exercise calories but I'm conservative in my estimates. Usually they range from 200-350cals added back depending on intensity and duration].

-When I obsess about the number on the scale I don't lose weight. This has happened so many times in my life. I don't understand how it works but I could be doing the exact same calorie regimen and if I'm negative and obsessing over the scale I won't lose weight. When I let go of the expectations of losing weight and say "I'm eating this way because it makes me feel good and I'm going to be happy and not worry about the number on the scale" I do lose weight. Stress hormones? I still weigh myself but I can't get into a negative thought pattern of obsessing if I'm following my diet and the number won't drop. It sabotages me.

-Aggressively lowering calories has not worked for me. Consistently lowering my calories or eating very little has not worked. It slowed down my metabolism. About 10 years ago I lost 30lbs too quickly on weight watchers by eating way too little. My period stopped, my hair fell out, I hit a hard plateau and then gained it all back (and more) no matter how little I ate or how much I exercised. This time around I set my goal as the slowest possible loss (.5lbs loss per week) I have shifted my focus to finding my target calories and getting as close to that without overeating. If I can maintain a modest calorie deficit for a long period of time, my body doesn't feel hungry. This has been the key to my 30lb, slow and sustained weight loss.

I trust you know how to count your calories since you've done it before. I would guess the problem isn't that you're eating tons of hidden calories. I think you are eating too little for your size.

Here's my advice - take it or leave it - For 1-2 weeks eat "normally" as you were before and track your calories to see what your daily average was before you started cutting calories. Approach with a spirit of curiosity and no expectations of losing weight. Get an average daily calorie count for what you would normally eat. Then reduce this by 100-150 cal/day total and stick with that goal for for 3-4 weeks and see if anything happens. Pick one day/time a week to weigh yourself and try to put the number out of your mind for the rest of the week.

After many years of obsessing, restricting, under-eating, over-exercising, feeling dejected, slow and steady [being forgiving of myself] has worked for me! I hope you find what works for you!

bluecolin wrote: »

https://www.weightwatchers.com/us/blog/health/why-you-should-drink-water

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322296#six-reasons-why-drinking-water-may-help-you-lose-weight

"Drinking water instead of any beverage with calories (including milk, juice, soda, coffee, tea, sports drinks, alcohol) reliably lowers the total calories, carbohydrate, and protein that people consume at their meal..."

Breaking news: consuming fewer calories in a meal results in consuming fewer calories in a meal.

mmapags wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

bluecolin wrote: »

https://www.weightwatchers.com/us/blog/health/why-you-should-drink-water

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322296#six-reasons-why-drinking-water-may-help-you-lose-weight

"Drinking water instead of any beverage with calories (including milk, juice, soda, coffee, tea, sports drinks, alcohol) reliably lowers the total calories, carbohydrate, and protein that people consume at their meal..."

Breaking news: consuming fewer calories in a meal results in consuming fewer calories in a meal.

Cracks me up when people post links to things that don't say what they think it does. 😂

Reading things as saying something other than what they say is a pretty good route to believing things that are marginally (if at all) true/useful . . . as well as vice-versa via confirmation bias.

Once again, for clarity: I think adequate hydration is important, for a variety of reasons. What I disagree with is the idea that it's a major factor (or even a significant factor) in weight loss rate for someone who is consuming a reasonable amount of fluids (of all hydrating sorts) and who doesn't have any other symptoms of dehydration. The one possible exception is that subset of people who personally and individually find that drinking more water reduces their appetites, so makes it easier to stick to a sensible calorie goal.

Shelle33 wrote: »

Thanks so much for all of your helpful advice! I really appreciate it.

To clear a few things up:

• I drink between 2-3 litres of liquid per day just naturally (water, herbal tea and a bit of black tea). I tend to let my thirst be my guide on this as much as possible. I don't believe drinking water is a weight loss cure-all, but I like to be hydrated.
• In terms of calorie burn, I have an apple watch that I've worn pretty much every day for 4 years. I burn between 100-350 calories in a half hour workout session (higher end for something like HIIT, lower end for something like light yoga or flexibility work). I have a tough time getting my heart rate up, as I have a low resting heart rate (between 53-59bpm). My activity has changed slightly during quarantine, as I can't walk or dance nearly as much as I used to. To compensate, I've really been trying to focus on my home workouts, but it is a shift for me. I think that could mean that I have some inflammation or water retention going on.
• I don't eat back my exercise calories, as I usually assume there might be some sort of counting error and the margins already seem razor thin. The only time I add a little extra in (50-100 calories) is if I've done one of my heavier workout sessions. I also eat between 1200 and 1300 per day with the goal of losing 1lb per week.
• I've tried eating higher calorie for weight loss, but it hasn't worked for me. I gained about 8lbs when I did 1800 calories for 1 month and another 3lbs when I tried 1600 for another month. This was when I was working with a plant-based dietician. She didn't seem to understand why and neither did I...

At your current size, an accurate 1200-1300 calories ought to result in weight loss, even eating back exercise calories. Do you have any kind of calorie-estimate idea of how much your daily-life (non-exercise) calorie burn has changed during quarantine? That could be a source of variation.

Don't get me wrong when I say this, because I think the amount you're drinking for hydration should be fine, but I think the problem is as likely to be water weight fluctuation, especially if you've changed up your exercise routine recently (because of quarantine), as it sounds like. Muscle repair results in additional water retention, and that can mask fat loss on the scale temporarily. Further, you're female, and probably (?) not menopausal yet, and water weight during our reproductive years is an entertaining ride. This would be a good read:

https://physiqonomics.com/the-weird-and-highly-annoying-world-of-scale-weight-and-fluctuations

I think maybe 2 weeks has just not been long enough to see fat loss that's actually happening. I'd suggest giving it at least a full menstrual cycle on this routine, before tweaking things, so you can compare body weight at the same relative point in two different monthly cycles . . . maybe even 3 cycles, given the exercise changes. (I know that's frustrating.)

Beyond what may be at play in your weight loss scenario, I'd suggest learning a bit more about heart rate, exercise, and calorie estimation.

It's hard to unpack, but I think you're thinking some things I don't think are fully accurate.

I've been about your size (started weight loss at 5'5", 183 pounds), and very active for over a decade at that weight (competing athletically, for a while). 350 calories per half hour is quite a significant calorie burn rate at that size. Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely . . . hmmm.

I don't know what the HIIT activity is, but if there's a strength component (as in bodyweight exercises or weight circuits), especially an overhead strength component, then a HRM/fitness tracker is likely to overestimate the calories. (I'm sure you realize your Apple watch, like every other tracker, is not measuring calories, but estimating them based on your personal data plus inputs from HRM, motion sensors, etc.).

Trackers are good at estimating some things, and pretty inaccurate at estimating others. HIIT tends to be one of the "others", even near-pure cardio HIIT, let alone anything with a strength aspect.

A low resting heart rate, per se, doesn't prevent getting HR up, though it does affect the intensity level needed in order to do so, and some activities allow for more intensity than others. (When I was training, vs. just doing active stuff for fun as I am now, my resting HR was reliably in the upper 40s/low 50s even while obese. I could still reach 180bpm, which is around my tested HRmax (age estimate max would've been more like 160 at the time, BTW - difference is mainly genetics, not fitness).

It's actually possible, too, to have a lower HRmax than age estimates. (Age estimates tend to be inaccurate for a fair fraction of people, inaccurate enough to be a poor training guide.) However, if that were true for you, RPE (rate of perceived exertion should give you clues). It isn't obvious to me, from what you've posted, whether you're a relative beginner at being vigorously active, vs. have been doing it for years, or something in between.

Not being able to increase heart rate is more a matter of fitness level, or specific activity type intensity limitations, or mis-estimated HRmax, IMO. A lower resting rate is just the point you start from, not anything super special that should affect how high you can get in your actual range. A person can attain a lower resting rate as they get fitter, but we can have a lower rate even when of average fitness just from genetic factors. Either way, intense exercise should move HR up into higher ranges.

As a starting point, there's some good info in this post (an oldie but goodie) about calories and HRMs (which also generalizes to the more recent fitness trackers, to the extent they rely on HR in estimating):

https://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

Best wishes!