Eating at 1600 calories with 1700-2300 3 days a week since May 20th
Options
aleena2975
Posts: 24 Member
Hey guys,
Typically 4 days a week I eat 1600 calories and the rest varies from 1700-2300. I haven't lost any weight yet. I'm basically just at maintenance. Any advice as to why I'm not losing and what else I can do?
Typically 4 days a week I eat 1600 calories and the rest varies from 1700-2300. I haven't lost any weight yet. I'm basically just at maintenance. Any advice as to why I'm not losing and what else I can do?
Tagged:
0
Replies
-
Your overall weekly number is too high. You need to lower it and track accurately.
Add up 7 days of calories and divide by 7 and this is the number to look at. Now take that number and make it lower in the future
Depending on your activity level and exercise program you can also get more active or a combo of that combined with fewer calories.3 -
It's hard to tell without more information. Offhand, your higher calorie days are most likely cancelling out your deficit. Quick math says that your daily average for a week ranges anywhere from 1642 calories per day to 1900. While a good many women can lose weight at 1900 calories a day, there are also a whole lot who would maintain or even gain at that calorie level.
What are your stats? Where did you get the 1600/1700/2300 calorie goal from? Did you use the MFP guided setup? If you did, what rate of loss did you choose? Are you tracking calories daily or weekly?2 -
I'm going to give some controversial advice . Try just eating at 2000 cals daily . Make sure you measure and calorie count accurately. Stick to it for at least 3 weeks. Then check- did weight go up or down or stay the same?
Then based of this you raise or lower calorie goals . It's research.
FP always tells me to eat like 1200 cals. But I have lots of muscle and an active job. I can not stick to such a low amount. I am losing weight at 2100 currently . It's easy.
When I go to 1700 or below I feel crazy. I have actually gained on 1500 cals a day before . When eating so little I turn into a zombie. I remember literally laying in bed all day because I felt so tired and calling in sick to work . So I burn less calories I guess.
3 -
Also have you put on any muscle ? Make sure you tape measure your waist . The scale can be deceiving if you are in the middle of body recomp0
-
Height / weight / goal weight? I would gain at 1900 but I am currently relatively small.0
-
chloehamilton1401 wrote: »Also have you put on any muscle ? Make sure you tape measure your waist . The scale can be deceiving if you are in the middle of body recomp
I have gained muscle for sure! In body recomp will the scale not go down?0 -
-
chloehamilton1401 wrote: »I'm going to give some controversial advice . Try just eating at 2000 cals daily . Make sure you measure and calorie count accurately. Stick to it for at least 3 weeks. Then check- did weight go up or down or stay the same?
Then based of this you raise or lower calorie goals . It's research.
FP always tells me to eat like 1200 cals. But I have lots of muscle and an active job. I can not stick to such a low amount. I am losing weight at 2100 currently . It's easy.
When I go to 1700 or below I feel crazy. I have actually gained on 1500 cals a day before . When eating so little I turn into a zombie. I remember literally laying in bed all day because I felt so tired and calling in sick to work . So I burn less calories I guess.
I could try it I guess. I used to eat 1800, still no weight gain or loss. At 1600-1800 I'm still stable0 -
It's hard to tell without more information. Offhand, your higher calorie days are most likely cancelling out your deficit. Quick math says that your daily average for a week ranges anywhere from 1642 calories per day to 1900. While a good many women can lose weight at 1900 calories a day, there are also a whole lot who would maintain or even gain at that calorie level.
What are your stats? Where did you get the 1600/1700/2300 calorie goal from? Did you use the MFP guided setup? If you did, what rate of loss did you choose? Are you tracking calories daily or weekly?
I have a nutritionist, and a trainer at my gym. I'm not using a guide to lose just wanting it to come off slowly. 1 pound every 2 weeks of week would make me happy! I track almost daily. Sometimes on the weekend I skip a day or two.1 -
aleena2975 wrote: »chloehamilton1401 wrote: »Also have you put on any muscle ? Make sure you tape measure your waist . The scale can be deceiving if you are in the middle of body recomp
I have gained muscle for sure! In body recomp will the scale not go down?
No, recomp = recomposition = more muscle and less fat for the same weight
The volume of your body will go down (muscle is more compact than fat for the same weight) which means lower body measurements/looser clothes.0 -
at your stats you want to see the scale going down. Even if you were experiencing a slight recomp you won’t put muscle on in the same amount as you should be losing fat.aleena2975 wrote: »
Muscle only burns an additional 6 to 8 cal a day for every pound that you put on so it really doesn’t make you burn that many more calories so you can’t rely on adding a couple pound of muscle to burn calories in any real amount.
You aren’t in a weekly deficit so the only way you’ll lose fat is by lowering overall calories on a consistent basis and/or add activity.
0 -
I'm going to point out that most people at an extremely small deficit where they are successfully losing can't really tell from the scale unless they are plugging in their results in a weight trend graph and visualizing it.
The rate of change is smaller than natural fluctuation. This doesn't mean that a year later your 170 doesn't become 160---it does and it can.
Individual goals are individual. I had an MFPeop who successfully recomped at what would be considered a very high overweight weight for her height. I am waiting to find out what records she will break... but for sure she could twirl me in the air!
She is the recomp exception mind you. And she certainly made the gym her life for several years
Not sure how the occasional weekend not tracking works in conjunction with a small deficit
If you have a small deficit and expect slow results and get slow results I don't see what is not working as expected.
Start from tracking every single day and getting an actual amount of weekly calories...0 -
Plugging in those height and weight numbers here and assuming 50 yo, gives an assumed TDEE of about 1,700 for sedentary and 1,950 for slightly active. So based on your OP, you may well be around there. And the fact you aren't losing weight suggests that you are indeed at maintenance.
Check your food diary is accurate, with correct entries and correct portion sizes, and that you're including everything, such as coffee creamer, condiments, every snack, etc.
If you aren't getting many steps in, getting to 10,000 should work great for you.
Those 3 days where you consume potentially more than your typical daily TDEE, change that behavior.
https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/0 -
aleena2975 wrote: »
I'm also female, started out a bit above your size (5'5", 183 in my case). I'm probably way older than you (59-60 when losing, 68 now, in maintenance in lower 130s pounds, so close to your goal weight).
No other individual's calorie needs will inform yours, because we're all unique. Most people will be close to the averages that calorie needs "calculators" or fitness trackers spit out, but a few will be noticeably higher or lower, a rare few surprisingly much higher or lower.
Your personal results give you a better estimate than any other possible source. If you've been eating X calories daily, averaged over a whole month or more (whole menstrual cycle, if you have those), and would like to lose around half a pound a week on average, try eating X minus 250 calories on average.
I lost most of 50-ish pounds eating 1400-1600 calories plus carefully-estimated exercise calories, but that's just me. Your personal results will be a good guide. I had to do it that way myself, because MFP and my good brand/model fitness tracker (one that's close for others) is off by 25-30% for me . . . off by hundreds of calories daily. Personal real-world results tell a truer story.
P.S. I fervently wish it were otherwise, but gaining muscle is a slow process, especially if in a calorie deficit for fat loss. (It may even prove impossible during loss, but that can vary.) Even in a calorie surplus and with all other ideal conditions, a pound a month of muscle mass gain would be a very good result for a woman. Being in a calorie deficit would make that slower, at best. Like someone else said, muscle gain is extremely unlikely to outpace any realistically observable fat loss rate on the bodyweight scale. Pure recomp is steady weight, gaining a bit of muscle (more compact/dense) while burning off a bit of fat (less compact) to partly fuel the process.
ETA: Getting stronger is a wonderful thing, but getting stronger is not a sure sign of having gained muscle. Our bodies will add strength at first by better recruiting and utilizing our existing muscle fibers (neuromuscular adaptation, NMA) Adding new muscle fibers is a slower process, and tends to come along after the NMA strength gains are mostly tapped out..0 -
While relying on a calorie calculator is not something you should be doing as the final word on your intake, relying on anecdotal calorie amounts posted by other people is the absolute worst way to gauge what you should be doing.2
-
aleena2975 wrote: »It's hard to tell without more information. Offhand, your higher calorie days are most likely cancelling out your deficit. Quick math says that your daily average for a week ranges anywhere from 1642 calories per day to 1900. While a good many women can lose weight at 1900 calories a day, there are also a whole lot who would maintain or even gain at that calorie level.
What are your stats? Where did you get the 1600/1700/2300 calorie goal from? Did you use the MFP guided setup? If you did, what rate of loss did you choose? Are you tracking calories daily or weekly?
I have a nutritionist, and a trainer at my gym. I'm not using a guide to lose just wanting it to come off slowly. 1 pound every 2 weeks of week would make me happy! I track almost daily. Sometimes on the weekend I skip a day or two.
I'd start here. Odds are exceedingly likely that you are eating more than you think on these days.1 -
aleena2975 wrote: »
I'm also female, started out a bit above your size (5'5", 183 in my case). I'm probably way older than you (59-60 when losing, 68 now, in maintenance in lower 130s pounds, so close to your goal weight).
No other individual's calorie needs will inform yours, because we're all unique. Most people will be close to the averages that calorie needs "calculators" or fitness trackers spit out, but a few will be noticeably higher or lower, a rare few surprisingly much higher or lower.
Your personal results give you a better estimate than any other possible source. If you've been eating X calories daily, averaged over a whole month or more (whole menstrual cycle, if you have those), and would like to lose around half a pound a week on average, try eating X minus 250 calories on average.
I lost most of 50-ish pounds eating 1400-1600 calories plus carefully-estimated exercise calories, but that's just me. Your personal results will be a good guide. I had to do it that way myself, because MFP and my good brand/model fitness tracker (one that's close for others) is off by 25-30% for me . . . off by hundreds of calories daily. Personal real-world results tell a truer story.
P.S. I fervently wish it were otherwise, but gaining muscle is a slow process, especially if in a calorie deficit for fat loss. (It may even prove impossible during loss, but that can vary.) Even in a calorie surplus and with all other ideal conditions, a pound a month of muscle mass gain would be a very good result for a woman. Being in a calorie deficit would make that slower, at best. Like someone else said, muscle gain is extremely unlikely to outpace any realistically observable fat loss rate on the bodyweight scale. Pure recomp is steady weight, gaining a bit of muscle (more compact/dense) while burning off a bit of fat (less compact) to partly fuel the process.
ETA: Getting stronger is a wonderful thing, but getting stronger is not a sure sign of having gained muscle. Our bodies will add strength at first by better recruiting and utilizing our existing muscle fibers (neuromuscular adaptation, NMA) Adding new muscle fibers is a slower process, and tends to come along after the NMA strength gains are mostly tapped out..
I get inbody scans at my gym. I definitely have put on a pound of muscle a month roughly!0
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
- 232.3K 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
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions