I’m trying and trying and nada
Options
Replies
-
It may totally not apply in this case, but threads of this nature do bring this to mind:
https://bodyrecomposition.com/research/dietary-restraint-cortisol-levels
That may be over-dramatic in common cases like OP's, but similar things can apply in less extreme scenarios, in a lower-key way.
Unlike some others who've posted, I do suspect that it's possible to see a scale stall via under-eating, from a conspiracy of adaptive thermogenesis and stress-related water retention.
If OP is still reading, options might be at least 2-4 weeks at calculator-estimated maintenance calories, prioritizing balanced nutrition but increasing healthy carbs (expecting the scale to go wild); or maybe (as an alternative) increasing calories by 100 daily, waiting a couple of weeks, increasing another hundred, etc. - hanging in for 6 weeks or so at least.
Yes, that might not work. One might gain. It's a potential set of experiments. Could go badly. Yup.3 -
@kt9pk2xwwc you need to understand why we question you. To run a female body without any movement, any activity from you it needs at least 900 calories every single day. That's for your heart to beat and pump your blood around, the brain needs a massive amount of energy to run all these processes, digestion, all your other internal organs working. This all needs energy. You saying you haven't lost any weight for 9 months only eating 1200 calories while being active. Something is off here. The chance that you don't have any internal organs is small, thus the most likely explanation is that you eat a lot more than you think.
* It might be due to very wrong database entries
* it might be due to eating a lot of restaurant food where generally a portion is a lot bigger than for the given calories.
* It might be you're eating in your sleep
* having frequent binges, which you don't log because you've been doing so well all week
* (and to be honest, if you ate so little and were so active binges are very, very likely. You would have burned out months ago!)
* and yes, not logging everything truthfully as well.7 -
OP is probably gone, but there is something useful to be learned here. OP has a PT. Doesn't say for how long, although says there's been no weight loss for 9 months. What does your PT say? You're paying this person to get results. Your PT has the data needed to resolve your problem---we don't. Reread your 1st post and pretend it's someone else. What advice would you give?
So, OP, grill your PT and if you aren't getting results, find a new one.
Also find it strange that the OP has food allergies and hates to eat. We had another poster like that that popped up every now and again. That poster was also overweight, couldn't lose, but hated food.5 -
Most PT's have minimal knowledge of nutrition and eating for balance. Most of what they learn is from gym broscience.snowflake954 wrote: »OP is probably gone, but there is something useful to be learned here. OP has a PT. Doesn't say for how long, although says there's been no weight loss for 9 months. What does your PT say? You're paying this person to get results. Your PT has the data needed to resolve your problem---we don't. Reread your 1st post and pretend it's someone else. What advice would you give?
So, OP, grill your PT and if you aren't getting results, find a new one.
Also find it strange that the OP has food allergies and hates to eat. We had another poster like that that popped up every now and again. That poster was also overweight, couldn't lose, but hated food.
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
4 -
Based on simple logic, your body is likely in starvation mode. You aren't getting enough food for basic physical processes! If you are jogging and rock-climbing, activities I also do, you need a heck of a lot more than 1224 calories a day!! You are probably losing muscle mass, and that further slows your metabolism. This is really bad. You need to start eating more a day, and forget about "losing" weight for now. Start gaining muscle. Muscle weighs more than fat. Expect gaining some weight, but start by getting healthier, not lighter on the scale. Then (maybe in a few months) you can refocus on losing fat.0
-
serpentegena wrote: »Based on simple logic, your body is likely in starvation mode. You aren't getting enough food for basic physical processes! If you are jogging and rock-climbing, activities I also do, you need a heck of a lot more than 1224 calories a day!! You are probably losing muscle mass, and that further slows your metabolism. This is really bad. You need to start eating more a day, and forget about "losing" weight for now. Start gaining muscle. Muscle weighs more than fat. Expect gaining some weight, but start by getting healthier, not lighter on the scale. Then (maybe in a few months) you can refocus on losing fat.
FFS, can't we have a message when posting a reply that starvation mode does not exist? What you're describing means that various organs suddenly stop working and instead the body uses the energy to fuel activities. Can you explain how that works? But yes, you are right, TO is not able to do this on 1200 calories per day.6 -
serpentegena wrote: »Based on simple logic, your body is likely in starvation mode. You aren't getting enough food for basic physical processes! If you are jogging and rock-climbing, activities I also do, you need a heck of a lot more than 1224 calories a day!! You are probably losing muscle mass, and that further slows your metabolism. This is really bad. You need to start eating more a day, and forget about "losing" weight for now. Start gaining muscle. Muscle weighs more than fat. Expect gaining some weight, but start by getting healthier, not lighter on the scale. Then (maybe in a few months) you can refocus on losing fat.
Please read this on starvation mode:
https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/2 -
Indeed. All of us have to learn that we should not seek information where it is almost guaranteed to be absent. Go to a real doctor first, a dietitian second, not the other way around and not elsewhere.Most PT's have minimal knowledge of nutrition and eating for balance. Most of what they learn is from gym broscience.
MFP may provide some useful tools and may be good for motivation, but due to its (very understandable) rules and interpretation thereof, it is intentionally unable to provide complete and completely objective information.
It has been made clear to me that I am not allowed to share my precise information, so I won't. I can say that after essentially stagnating for 2 years I am now losing weight again. Very slowly, but I am. A doctor is your best bet. In preparation, take a cold, hard and thorough look at *everything* you do and record it. Be brutally honest. Hiding or embellishing information is only going to sabotage you. Remember, this is about you, not about pleasing or impressing someone else.
And keep in mind that everyone can lose weight. It is impossible not to lose weight when doing what is required and what is required is reducing your energy intake to below your energy needs. If you do, you *will* lose weight. What is required may be too much of a price to pay, but that is something you have to figure out for yourself with the help of a real doctor, not some random exercise "expert" (whatever that means) who most likely got her/his information from the back of a cornflakes box or some "natural therapist".
0 -
Indeed, but only for a very short time. We should never forget the following structure of science:Unlike some others who've posted, I do suspect that it's possible to see a scale stall via under-eating, from a conspiracy of adaptive thermogenesis and stress-related water retention.
Physics > chemistry > biochemistry > biology > medecine
What that means is that medicine is ultimately subject to the laws of physics. It is arguably more complicated but not outside of it. The impossibility to lose weight is an illusion. Despite the fact that it is incredibly simple to disprove that statement, it has *never* been done. Such is the nature of reality.
Water retention may seemingly make things more difficult, but think of it: if it were really so that it could stall weight loss indefinitely, that would mean we would gradually turn into ever more fragile balloons that ultimately explode and send us into oblivion. I am unaware of such a case having been observed, not even in the most extreme cases of elephanthiasis. That does not mean it does not exist, only that it is so rare that we are unlikely to live long enough to ever be confronted with such a case.
0 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
Indeed, but only for a very short time. We should never forget the following structure of science:Unlike some others who've posted, I do suspect that it's possible to see a scale stall via under-eating, from a conspiracy of adaptive thermogenesis and stress-related water retention.
Physics > chemistry > biochemistry > biology > medecine
What that means is that medicine is ultimately subject to the laws of physics. It is arguably more complicated but not outside of it. The impossibility to lose weight is an illusion. Despite the fact that it is incredibly simple to disprove that statement, it has *never* been done. Such is the nature of reality.
Water retention may seemingly make things more difficult, but think of it: if it were really so that it could stall weight loss indefinitely, that would mean we would gradually turn into ever more fragile balloons that ultimately explode and send us into oblivion. I am unaware of such a case having been observed, not even in the most extreme cases of elephanthiasis. That does not mean it does not exist, only that it is so rare that we are unlikely to live long enough to ever be confronted with such a case.
Nine months - the OP's reported timeline - is indeed a very long time. Nonetheless, I think you may underestimate the potential, în a very narrow range of circumstances, and a certain band of calorie intake. I'm not sure, and I certainly can't prove it, though. Nonetheless, in some very particular cases, I think there are enough hints to make it worth n=1 experiments.
There's decent research suggesting that spontaneous movement differences can account for up to low hundreds of calories daily between otherwise similar people, and I'll point out that spontaneous movement adaptation isn't even strictly metabolic. Metabolic adaptation to too-low calories is well documented. (No, I don't mean the Biggest Loser studies. Those are very questionable.) Then there's the odd cortisol effects, as discussed in the article I linked. That part's not about fat.
Reading here for 7+ years, there have also been provocative anecdotes from a variety of people, suggesting that there's a sweet spot intake zone where energy level stays high, nutrition adequate, and avoidable physical stress remains low. Below, energy tanks (perhaps subtly), TDEE appears to drop. But anecdotes for sure aren't data!
Further, while I've never seen research on this point (maybe poor search skills on my part), anecdotally it seems (from reading experiences in the maintenance sub-forum here) that individuals' adaptations vary quite a lot. Some people going to maintenance calories - even maintenance estimated from their own loss data - see quite a sizeable jump in maintenance calorie needs a month or few out for no obvious reason, while others see little such effect.
Yes, cutting calories to some much lower level will always result in fat (or other body tissue) loss and weight loss on the scale long term. It can't not. What I'm suggesting is that isn't always the best, most healthful solution - not necessarily the path to best thriving. It's certainly true that human bodies are dynamic: Calories in affect calories out.
In some narrow cases, like I said, I think it's worth the couple-month experiment(s), vs. just cut-cut-cut. The cost of the experiment(s) is mostly just a few months' time, maybe a small weight gain. Unless morbidly obese to the point of inherent major health risk, that cost could be worth it.
The implicit underpinnings of your argument also have some vulnerabilities, I think. The standard deviation of metabolic rate, per large scale research, is reasonably small. Yes, in theory there can be very extreme outliers, individual people many standard deviations away from the mean. But the probability of being one is very low, y'know?
For clarity, I do believe low-calorie-needs outliers exist. It's just a probability issue: How likely, at what extreme? (I'm seemingly a moderate outlier myself, just in the opposite direction, with only mild hints why.)
I think careful calorie increase experiments can be a rational alternative to cut-cut-cut, in some situations. Your mileage obviously varies. Readers can choose, I guess.
Cheers!3 -
Most PT's have minimal knowledge of nutrition and eating for balance. Most of what they learn is from gym broscience.snowflake954 wrote: »OP is probably gone, but there is something useful to be learned here. OP has a PT. Doesn't say for how long, although says there's been no weight loss for 9 months. What does your PT say? You're paying this person to get results. Your PT has the data needed to resolve your problem---we don't. Reread your 1st post and pretend it's someone else. What advice would you give?
So, OP, grill your PT and if you aren't getting results, find a new one.
Also find it strange that the OP has food allergies and hates to eat. We had another poster like that that popped up every now and again. That poster was also overweight, couldn't lose, but hated food.
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
I'm sure the good ones have some basic knowledge - and are very good at what they do - personal training - but specialised nutrition is not their area.
If the person who is helping you isnt helping with nutrition or weight loss - see someone who is specialised in that area - ie a qualified dietician.
Depending on the system in your country, you may need to see a GP first to get a referral - and to rule out medical factors first.
1 -
I think you are thinkng the same thing. My point is simply that I wish the language used to be more precise and less oversimplifying. There are a gazillion claims on line that "calories don't count". That is nonsense, and while it is sometimes clear that the authors don't mean this as a literal claim, it often is not or they even go as far as to claim they actually mean it, even when they have proven before that they know the claim is untrue.Yes, cutting calories to some much lower level will always result in fat (or other body tissue) loss and weight loss on the scale long term. It can't not. What I'm suggesting is that isn't always the best, most healthful solution - not necessarily the path to best thriving. It's certainly true that human bodies are dynamic: Calories in affect calories out.
The problem I have is this: many people take this literally and do not understand the reality behind the science. By oversimplifying things, people are being confused and misled into doing things that are simply guiding them down the garden path.
It is also why I always insist they consult a doctor. I have, unfortunately, seen too many dietitians literally claiming that CICO is untrue, and –Oh horror– even some doctors, there are just far fewer of the latter, so the probability that people will be fooled into (potentially dangerous) nonsense is much smaller. We live in an imperfect world, and I submit that we really don't need to add to the misinformation.
As Einstein is reputed to have said: "We can simplify things as much as possible but no more than that".
0 -
Check with your gynecologist. The pill made me gain and hold weight. That could be part of the problem.1
-
Over 20 years of taking two different progesterones, I have gained weight, maintained weight, and lost weight.
I maintained weight while taking an anti-estrogen.1 -
A calorie deficit will always result in weight loss, period. In this particular case one thing is guaranteed, if they were put in a metabolic chamber and consumed 1200 calories and exercised to the extent that they say they are, weight loss would have occurred. Not losing weight for 9 months with the intensity of their exercise and the reported calories consumed is a fairy tale. I suspect this person believes what they're saying. Cheers7
-
Absolutely. There is no way denying that. All types of phenomena may have an influence, but ultimately, an energy deficit will always result in (fat) weight loss. Anything else is impossible, unless the totality of physics is wrong, and given that we are using means of communication here that are based on those physics, that seems unlikely into the extreme. Just because people do not like reality does not make that reality change in any manner. If it were, there would hardly be any fat people on this planet since almost no one wants to be fat, with the possible exception of sumo wrestlers.neanderthin wrote: »A calorie deficit will always result in weight loss, period. People's interpretation of CICO varies it appears. In this particular case one thing is guaranteed, if they were put in a metabolic chamber and consumed 1200 calories and exercised to the extent that they say they are, weight loss would have occurred. Not losing weight for 9 months with the intensity of their exercise and the reported calories consumed is a fairy tale. I suspect this person believes what they're saying. Cheers
0 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
I think you are thinkng the same thing. My point is simply that I wish the language used to be more precise and less oversimplifying. There are a gazillion claims on line that "calories don't count". That is nonsense, and while it is sometimes clear that the authors don't mean this as a literal claim, it often is not or they even go as far as to claim they actually mean it, even when they have proven before that they know the claim is untrue.Yes, cutting calories to some much lower level will always result in fat (or other body tissue) loss and weight loss on the scale long term. It can't not. What I'm suggesting is that isn't always the best, most healthful solution - not necessarily the path to best thriving. It's certainly true that human bodies are dynamic: Calories in affect calories out.
The problem I have is this: many people take this literally and do not understand the reality behind the science. By oversimplifying things, people are being confused and misled into doing things that are simply guiding them down the garden path.
As Einstein is reputed to have said: "We can simplify things as much as possible but no more than that".BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
I think you are thinkng the same thing. My point is simply that I wish the language used to be more precise and less oversimplifying. There are a gazillion claims on line that "calories don't count". That is nonsense, and while it is sometimes clear that the authors don't mean this as a literal claim, it often is not or they even go as far as to claim they actually mean it, even when they have proven before that they know the claim is untrue.Yes, cutting calories to some much lower level will always result in fat (or other body tissue) loss and weight loss on the scale long term. It can't not. What I'm suggesting is that isn't always the best, most healthful solution - not necessarily the path to best thriving. It's certainly true that human bodies are dynamic: Calories in affect calories out.
The problem I have is this: many people take this literally and do not understand the reality behind the science. By oversimplifying things, people are being confused and misled into doing things that are simply guiding them down the garden path.
It is also why I always insist they consult a doctor. I have, unfortunately, seen too many dietitians literally claiming that CICO is untrue, and –Oh horror– even some doctors, there are just far fewer of the latter, so the probability that people will be fooled into (potentially dangerous) nonsense is much smaller. We live in an imperfect world, and I submit that we really don't need to add to the misinformation.
As Einstein is reputed to have said: "We can simplify things as much as possible but no more than that".
What are they saying is untrue, just curious? The reason I say this is because I talked with an intern sitting in for my doctor and she apparently wasn't aware that dietary cholesterol doesn't directly get metabolized into the blood stream and when I asked about K2 she said she never heard of it and that i must have just heard about it over the internet. I had a conversation with my Dr. about it, who is a friend as well, and we got a chuckle.
Anytime something is believed to be "the science" you can bet that there will be scientists still asking questions but not in medical school, that happens mostly later and generally in the PhD level, then go on to become scientists who specialize, conduct experiments, publish their work in peer reviewed publications and for the most part never see the light of day and worst case scenario is misinterpreted and this is only ground work for more interpretation and experimentation. I suspect that mainstream medical is at least a decade behind the current science when it comes to recommendations about health and nutrition and so the general public is pretty much misinformed and in the dark as well. That's just my opinion. Cheers.1 -
I can only agree with that. I remain stunned when I hear medical people claim that CICO is wrong. I realise that some of them mean essentially something like "total calories in - exercise calories out" but are they not supposed to learn the reality of how this actually works in high school? For heaven's sake, even de Lavoisier knew this already in the late 1700s.neanderthin wrote: »What are they saying is untrue, just curious? The reason I say this is because I talked with an intern sitting in for my doctor and she apparently wasn't aware that dietary cholesterol doesn't directly get metabolized into the blood stream and when I asked about K2 she said she never heard of it and if I heard about it over the internet. I had a conversation with my Dr. about it, who is a friend as well, and we got a chuckle.
Anytime something is believed to be "the science" you can bet that there will be scientists still asking questions but not in medical school, that happens mostly later and generally in the PhD level. I suspect that mainstream medical is at least a decade behind the current science when it comes to recommendations about health and nutrition and so the general public is pretty much misinformed as well. That's just my opinion.
1 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
I can only agree with that. I remain stunned when I hear medical people claim that CICO is wrong. I realize that some of them mean essentially something like "total calories in - exercise calories out" but are they not supposed to learn the reality of how this actually works in high school? For heaven's sake, even de Lavoisier knew this already in the late 1700s.neanderthin wrote: »What are they saying is untrue, just curious? The reason I say this is because I talked with an intern sitting in for my doctor and she apparently wasn't aware that dietary cholesterol doesn't directly get metabolized into the blood stream and when I asked about K2 she said she never heard of it and if I heard about it over the internet. I had a conversation with my Dr. about it, who is a friend as well, and we got a chuckle.
Anytime something is believed to be "the science" you can bet that there will be scientists still asking questions but not in medical school, that happens mostly later and generally in the PhD level. I suspect that mainstream medical is at least a decade behind the current science when it comes to recommendations about health and nutrition and so the general public is pretty much misinformed as well. That's just my opinion.
I understand what you're saying but can you explain what they are getting wrong for example? Just for clarification I believe if we're in a deficit we will lose weight.0
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
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions