When exercising how long to see llbs start coming off

darleenturner wrote: »

Doing over 10,000 steps a day, Jillian Michael's 30 day shred and other hiit classes. On 1200 calories. Stayed the same this week. I know I'm building muscle

Building muscle is an anabolic process. Losing weight is a catabolic process. The 2 don't exist at the same time. If you stayed the same (which is normal when uptaking a workout program), it's likely because of water retention due to muscle recovery (not the same as building). Can last up to 2 weeks.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

The above posts from ninerbuff and yirara are realistic.

If you're just starting out, the best approach is to stick with a new (but realistic, sustainable) routine for 4-6 weeks, then compare your average weight loss over that time period to your weight loss goal, on a per-week average basis. If the first couple of weeks look wildly different than the later weeks, discard the first couple of weeks from your averaging data, and look at 4+ subsequent weeks. If you're a premenopausal woman, compare the same relative point in at least two different menstrual cycles, since normal hormone-related changes in water retention can be very distorting, otherwise.

There is no generic answer to "when will I see results". Water retention from new exercise (for muscle repair) will mask fat loss on the scale temporarily, and the timing varies by person. The best approach is to run that 4-6 week experiment, and find out.

Now, I'm going to shift into "tough love granny" mode, because I'm probably old enough to be your granny, or at least your concerned but caring old auntie.

If you're doing that much exercise - new exercise to you - and eating only 1200 calories, I think you're on a questionable course. When I lost weight 5+ years ago with MFP, 1200 was too low for me, even when eating back all my exercise calories (as MFP recommends) on top of the 1200. I didn't get hungry or have binges (as many would when underfueling), I felt good and energetic (as many wouldn't). Then I hit a wall, suddenly got weak and fatigued. It took several weeks to recover, even though I corrected quickly. No one needs that. I was lucky nothing worse happened, because it can (things like hair loss at the minor end, to gallbladder problems, and more, to - at an extreme - heart failure**).

1200 is the right base calorie number for some relatively petite, sedentary, usually older, women. MFP intends eating back a reasonable estimate of exercise calories on top of base calories. Fast loss is not necessarily the best route. It's possible to train one's body to limp along on minimum calories, but it's better to train one's body to thrive. Any meaningful amount of weight loss is going to take time. (It took me just under a year to lose 50+ pounds, and that's a pretty fast rate in practice, for those who make it all the way to goal, not to mention stay at a healthy weight afterward.)

I know we all want to drop it like it's hot, but slow and steady is more sustainable (less likely to feel deprived, maybe periodically overeat, even give up), reduces health risks that can come with fast loss, and lets one experiment to find new, sustainable habits that will keep one at a healthy weight log term. Treating weight loss as a quick project with an end date is psychologically appealing, but true weight management is a lifetime endeavor, and patience is useful.

Wishing you much success, whatever course you choose!

**https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10761904/under-1200-for-weight-loss/p1