Help?! 1000-1200 cal. A day plus 1 hr exercise and not loosing an ounce....
Options
Replies
-
lorimiller18 wrote: »danielle71686 wrote: »I am 34 yo female, currently at 218lb no health problems eat..
I have decided to get healthier... I count every item in fitness pal, I have been doing 16 fast /8Hr eating and have been eating clean, balanced 1000-1200 calories a day in that window and have been drinking between 80-120 oz water a day no sodas ext plus an hour of exercise reaching a good heart rate during and it “says” I’m Burning 250-300 cal during exercise but the scale has not moved an ounce. Every day for a week exactly since I have started this journey no movement at all and I am not sure what to do.....
I did this for years. I gained not lost over the years especially after I hit my 40's. I'm now eating more (around 1655c, and exercising less, (less cardio) but more weight training. ) 5 weeks in, ive lost 0, but have gone down a full size. Wore a a shirt yesterday I couldn't fit into for the last year. You're setting your metabolism very low. Trust me, this will only lead to yoyo dieting and eventual weight gain.
No that’s complete nonsense. If you eat in a calorie deficit, you lose weight. Period. Also nonsense that it will lead to yo-yo dieting. If you try some diet that you can’t stick to long term, sure. However, if you make SUSTAINABLE LIFE STYLE changes, there is no reason to yo-yo. It can’t be “once I hit x lbs I go back to eating how I used to”, because then of course, the weight will come back.
That said, if you aren’t weighing your foods and you think you can eyeball portions.... You wouldn’t be on MFP trying to lose weight if you were capable of that.14 -
From my 12 years as a WW receptionist, I certainly saw people that were struggling to lose while eating too little. Why? I don't have the science, but I did see it happen. Your numbers sound very low to me.0
-
If you are not losing weight you are in a surplus. Starvation mode kicks in when you are literally starving. Eating more food will not help you lose weight that's stupid. You need to be in a deficit. If you can't restrict more food then do another hour of cardio or resistance training. You can't beat the laws of thermodynamics. Macros don't matter when you eat too much calories.7
-
From my 12 years as a WW receptionist, I certainly saw people that were struggling to lose while eating too little. Why? I don't have the science, but I did see it happen. Your numbers sound very low to me.
They weren’t eating too little. They just weren’t tracking properly, so they were eating in a surplus. CICO, if you eat fewer calories than needed to maintain your current weight you will lose weight. YES it IS that simple.15 -
From my 12 years as a WW receptionist, I certainly saw people that were struggling to lose while eating too little. Why? I don't have the science, but I did see it happen. Your numbers sound very low to me.
Curious to know if this was around the time WW "improved" their tracking system for points and had a bunch of foods that counted for zero points, etc...11 -
From my 12 years as a WW receptionist, I certainly saw people that were struggling to lose while eating too little. Why? I don't have the science, but I did see it happen. Your numbers sound very low to me.
Um, nope. You're saying that POW's and people residing in areas of intense famine should be...maintaining weight? Gaining weight? No. They lose weight. Indeed, they starve (the actual "starvation mode" of misunderstood dieting lore). Why? Because they're in an energy deficit. Hard stop.
12 -
All I can say, and it will be unpopular, is that from what I observed there is a window-ish area of calorie consumption that just messes with you. It makes no sense and you all can be mad at me as much as you want, but I am reporting what I observed, the advice that I learned to give over time to certain members, and the thanks I received the following weeks. I agree it makes no sense and I always prefaced it that way to the member. And I agree with every above argument that is against me, but what I observed is different. I just took a calculator for a second and estimated how many people I weighed in and spoke with over my years at WW, and it was over 70,000 people (edit: I should have said 70,000 weigh-ins not individual people). I can't explain what I saw.
1 -
I can't explain what I saw.
I think you either saw people lying to themselves/others or people that could not properly quantify and qualify both energy intake and expenditure (something easy to do with the WW point system). A pretty good chunk of the overall obesity problem has to do with this, after all.
Seriously, the laws of thermodynamics are immutable (as far as nutrition is concerned).
13 -
All I can say, and it will be unpopular, is that from what I observed there is a window-ish area of calorie consumption that just messes with you. It makes no sense and you all can be mad at me as much as you want, but I am reporting what I observed, the advice that I learned to give over time to certain members, and the thanks I received the following weeks. I agree it makes no sense and I always prefaced it that way to the member. And I agree with every above argument that is against me, but what I observed is different. I just took a calculator for a second and estimated how many people I weighed in and spoke with over my years at WW, and it was over 70,000 people (edit: I should have said 70,000 weigh-ins not individual people). I can't explain what I saw.
It is possible to eat so little that fatigue and weakness suck calorie burn out of daily life, and at that point, it's possible that subtle calorie expenditures (hair growth and what-not) are also reduced. This doesn't *stop* fat loss, unless it brings calories so low that the 1200 (or whatever) is now actual TDEE or above. (In the Minnesota Starvation Experiments, extreme lassitude overtook some participants in late stages. Weight loss would be expected to slow. If the deficient calorie intake continues, loss of body tissues will continue, and eventually death will result.)
it is possible to eat so little that binges occur, and shame about them causes people to hide them (perhaps even to delude themselves). Understandably, they may feel that they are being "so good" and that an exceptional eating event was deep failure, and that they are "still good" because "trying so very hard". Odds of someone reporting accurately, in those circumstances, are reduced. Depending on food tracking methods in use, portion creep can pay a similar role, though not as dramatic. Ditto for free foods, in contexts that permit them. Ditto for forgetting, in the context of record keeping. (Undereating can have negative cognitive effects, but is not the only possible explanation for forgetting).
It reportedly is possible, in a context of extreme dieting and stress about the dieting, to cause quite dramatic cortisol increases, which can involve multiple pounds of extra water retention, hiding fat loss (or alarmingly, loss of other useful body tissues) on the scale.
I'm going to go in hard for the laws of physics, and therefore the idea that calorie balance drives body weight. But it's not a simple, linear, obvious thing: CI affects CO. Things other than fat storage affect body weight on the scale. The things above are only a few possibilities.
I don't doubt the truth of what you're reporting, what you saw in other people, or that you're accurately reporting what they told you (or put in food logs, etc.). I do believe there are cases where people will see better results on the scale if they increase daily calories. But I'll bet on the laws of physics every single time, as being at work.10 -
All I can say, and it will be unpopular, is that from what I observed there is a window-ish area of calorie consumption that just messes with you. It makes no sense and you all can be mad at me as much as you want, but I am reporting what I observed, the advice that I learned to give over time to certain members, and the thanks I received the following weeks. I agree it makes no sense and I always prefaced it that way to the member. And I agree with every above argument that is against me, but what I observed is different. I just took a calculator for a second and estimated how many people I weighed in and spoke with over my years at WW, and it was over 70,000 people (edit: I should have said 70,000 weigh-ins not individual people). I can't explain what I saw.
It is possible to eat so little that fatigue and weakness suck calorie burn out of daily life, and at that point, it's possible that subtle calorie expenditures (hair growth and what-not) are also reduced. This doesn't *stop* fat loss, unless it brings calories so low that the 1200 (or whatever) is now actual TDEE or above. (In the Minnesota Starvation Experiments, extreme lassitude overtook some participants in late stages. Weight loss would be expected to slow. If the deficient calorie intake continues, loss of body tissues will continue, and eventually death will result.)
it is possible to eat so little that binges occur, and shame about them causes people to hide them (perhaps even to delude themselves). Understandably, they may feel that they are being "so good" and that an exceptional eating event was deep failure, and that they are "still good" because "trying so very hard". Odds of someone reporting accurately, in those circumstances, are reduced. Depending on food tracking methods in use, portion creep can pay a similar role, though not as dramatic. Ditto for free foods, in contexts that permit them. Ditto for forgetting, in the context of record keeping. (Undereating can have negative cognitive effects, but is not the only possible explanation for forgetting).
It reportedly is possible, in a context of extreme dieting and stress about the dieting, to cause quite dramatic cortisol increases, which can involve multiple pounds of extra water retention, hiding fat loss (or alarmingly, loss of other useful body tissues) on the scale.
I'm going to go in hard for the laws of physics, and therefore the idea that calorie balance drives body weight. But it's not a simple, linear, obvious thing: CI affects CO. Things other than fat storage affect body weight on the scale. The things above are only a few possibilities.
I don't doubt the truth of what you're reporting, what you saw in other people, or that you're accurately reporting what they told you (or put in food logs, etc.). I do believe there are cases where people will see better results on the scale if they increase daily calories. But I'll bet on the laws of physics every single time, as being at work.
I totally agree that physics makes the most sense. I spent 12 years working at WW and in the beginning as well as the preceding years when I was a member, I would have never said "eat more". That just does not make sense. Somewhere along the line, I did say it. Was that a corporate instruction, a particular leader I was supporting, or my own idea? It's been too many years and so many rule changes within WW that I honestly cannot remember but I think it came from corporate. Eventually, I tip toed into the subject. Talk about a scary instruction to give someone trying to lose weight. As the positive feedback came in, I was logically more willing to mention this instruction when it seemed appropriate for a member. It was all very odd, but happened.
Your breakdown above was great, and much of it could be the behind the scenes explanation of what was going on with a given member. I certainly saw plenty of odd things from the member eating whole water melons because they were "free" (points +), to the member angry at her gain because her cookies' points changed so now "that was all she was going to eat and it was WW's fault", and the person with a "perfect" diary that the only entries were coffee, pretzels and ice cream. I also got plenty of TMI from cycle issues, bathroom "status", and people wearing so little clothing for their weigh-in that you didn't know where to look. I gad two separate women lose their engagement rings because they took them off for a lower weight. It was a wild ride for those years. So, yes indeed, who knows what factors we behind the scene, and why the instruction to eat more helped. I did find your point about cortisol particularly interesting.
As for myself, in my bad state, I am a binger and closet eater and ironically the more you SEE me eat, the less I am actually eating because the closet and hidden binging is under control. Tracking helps me with that.3 -
There was a British show a few years back where they had private detectives follow around volunteers who claimed they were obese despite "barely eating anything." 100% of the time they were eating way more than they reported. I also got to see this phenomenon firsthand when a friend told me her medication made her gain massive amounts of weight... while she drank about 700 calories in sodas and Starbucks. Over about 30 minutes. My pancreas shuddered just watching her.
People just aren't that great at tracking their calorie intake. That's all it is. No mystery to it.9 -
There was a British show a few years back where they had private detectives follow around volunteers who claimed they were obese despite "barely eating anything." 100% of the time they were eating way more than they reported. I also got to see this phenomenon firsthand when a friend told me her medication made her gain massive amounts of weight... while she drank about 700 calories in sodas and Starbucks. Over about 30 minutes. My pancreas shuddered just watching her.
People just aren't that great at tracking their calorie intake. That's all it is. No mystery to it.
yup - secret eaters! it was a great show!3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 984 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions