Not losing weight
Options
princessmac5868
Posts: 1 Member
Hi. I am doing between 7000 and 8000 steps per day and consuming 1800 calories. I have lost almost 1 stone so far but now the weight loss has stopped. Any suggestions appreciated. Thanks
0
Answers
-
It may just be a temporary hiccup, you don't say how long it has been stopped. Be patient.
If it has been a month or so, then sadly I think it means you must reduce calories further.
You could try eating at maintenance level for a few days, and then drop back down to 1800 to see if that kickstarts anything.1 -
Generally there will be an initial loss with water loss then it stops or slows for up to 4-6 weeks so if it hasn’t been that long wait for that timeframe to judge then if no loss or extremely slow you’ll need to lower weekly calories.3
-
For how long has it stopped, and how long did you need to lose that 1 stone. Considering you're using stones I guess you're in the UK? It might just be water retention or constipation caused by the current hot weather.1
-
You may be at a plateau. When we start being active we start losing weight. Then we reach a point where the body goes "hang on, I keep losing weight - am I in danger? Must conserve energy (or must eat more)." That's a plateau and it's normal. Just keep being active and at some point your body will figure out that it's not in danger and you'll start dropping the weight again.2
-
will drop weight if there is an actual weekly calorie deficit consistentlyYou may be at a plateau. When we start being active we start losing weight. Then we reach a point where the body goes "hang on, I keep losing weight - am I in danger? Must conserve energy (or must eat more)." That's a plateau and it's normal. Just keep being active and at some point your body will figure out that it's not in danger and you'll start dropping the weight again.
3 -
tomcustombuilder wrote: »
will drop weight if there is an actual weekly calorie deficit consistentlyYou may be at a plateau. When we start being active we start losing weight. Then we reach a point where the body goes "hang on, I keep losing weight - am I in danger? Must conserve energy (or must eat more)." That's a plateau and it's normal. Just keep being active and at some point your body will figure out that it's not in danger and you'll start dropping the weight again.
In a perfect world yes. But reality isn't so neat. A simple example:
If the body is trying to conserve energy, your exercise isn't as intense. If you walk 3 miles a day, there's a difference between a brisk walk and a stroll. The distance is the same but the brisk walk will burn more calories because it requires a higher heart rate. The stroll will burn much less.0 -
that’s all well and good however your overall energy balance (calories in and out) will determine what your weight does.tomcustombuilder wrote: »
will drop weight if there is an actual weekly calorie deficit consistentlyYou may be at a plateau. When we start being active we start losing weight. Then we reach a point where the body goes "hang on, I keep losing weight - am I in danger? Must conserve energy (or must eat more)." That's a plateau and it's normal. Just keep being active and at some point your body will figure out that it's not in danger and you'll start dropping the weight again.
In a perfect world yes. But reality isn't so neat. A simple example:
If the body is trying to conserve energy, your exercise isn't as intense. If you walk 3 miles a day, there's a difference between a brisk walk and a stroll. The distance is the same but the brisk walk will burn more calories because it requires a higher heart rate. The stroll will burn much less.
2 -
tomcustombuilder wrote: »
will drop weight if there is an actual weekly calorie deficit consistentlyYou may be at a plateau. When we start being active we start losing weight. Then we reach a point where the body goes "hang on, I keep losing weight - am I in danger? Must conserve energy (or must eat more)." That's a plateau and it's normal. Just keep being active and at some point your body will figure out that it's not in danger and you'll start dropping the weight again.
In a perfect world yes. But reality isn't so neat. A simple example:
If the body is trying to conserve energy, your exercise isn't as intense. If you walk 3 miles a day, there's a difference between a brisk walk and a stroll. The distance is the same but the brisk walk will burn more calories because it requires a higher heart rate. The stroll will burn much less.
Your basic point is correct: If a person under-eats, subtle fatigue can tend to make that person's exercise sessions less vigorous. But in the case of walking, that would look more like a slower pace (or a similar pace at a lower body weight, maybe).
In reality, a brisk walk (in constant mph/kph terms) burns more calories because it's more work in the physics sense of "work". As a person gets fitter, the same walk at the same pace will happen at a lower heart rate, but that doesn't mean it's burning significantly fewer calories (at constant body weight, since weight affects the "work" being performed).
It's oxygen consumption that correlates kind of well with calorie burn. As we get fitter, our heart gets stronger, and pumps more blood (so more oxygen content) per heartbeat. That means it can deliver the same oxygen at a lower heart rate. Since oxygen consumption stays about the same, calorie burn is about the same. Heart rate is just a loose proxy for calorie burn, but easier to measure with an affordable portable device than oxygen consumption.
Yes, a heart rate monitor may claim a person's burning fewer calories, but that's a limitation of the device, not an accurate representation of reality. Yes, that same walking pace, same body weight, but lower heart rate will also feel easier when more fit . . . that's literally the fitness adaptation. Moving feels easier as we get fitter.
Tom's core point is right: Calorie balance determines fat loss.
Your point, that there are nuances, is also right. Those nuances via fatigue, appetite, spontaneous movement, even stuff like hair growth, core body temperature, and more. But if you think about it, if activity (broadly defined) down-regulates during weight loss (as it typically will, a bit), that means that we burn fewer calories than with up-regulated activity. It's still all about calorie balance. It's just that human bodies are dynamic, not static: Calories in unavoidably affects calories out.
2 -
tomcustombuilder wrote: »
that’s all well and good however your overall energy balance (calories in and out) will determine what your weight does.tomcustombuilder wrote: »
will drop weight if there is an actual weekly calorie deficit consistentlyYou may be at a plateau. When we start being active we start losing weight. Then we reach a point where the body goes "hang on, I keep losing weight - am I in danger? Must conserve energy (or must eat more)." That's a plateau and it's normal. Just keep being active and at some point your body will figure out that it's not in danger and you'll start dropping the weight again.
In a perfect world yes. But reality isn't so neat. A simple example:
If the body is trying to conserve energy, your exercise isn't as intense. If you walk 3 miles a day, there's a difference between a brisk walk and a stroll. The distance is the same but the brisk walk will burn more calories because it requires a higher heart rate. The stroll will burn much less.
I was pointing out that a less vigorous version of the same exercise burns less calories. So same in, less out = more weight.
0 -
tomcustombuilder wrote: »
will drop weight if there is an actual weekly calorie deficit consistentlyYou may be at a plateau. When we start being active we start losing weight. Then we reach a point where the body goes "hang on, I keep losing weight - am I in danger? Must conserve energy (or must eat more)." That's a plateau and it's normal. Just keep being active and at some point your body will figure out that it's not in danger and you'll start dropping the weight again.
In a perfect world yes. But reality isn't so neat. A simple example:
If the body is trying to conserve energy, your exercise isn't as intense. If you walk 3 miles a day, there's a difference between a brisk walk and a stroll. The distance is the same but the brisk walk will burn more calories because it requires a higher heart rate. The stroll will burn much less.
Your basic point is correct: If a person under-eats, subtle fatigue can tend to make that person's exercise sessions less vigorous. But in the case of walking, that would look more like a slower pace (or a similar pace at a lower body weight, maybe).
In reality, a brisk walk (in constant mph/kph terms) burns more calories because it's more work in the physics sense of "work". As a person gets fitter, the same walk at the same pace will happen at a lower heart rate, but that doesn't mean it's burning significantly fewer calories (at constant body weight, since weight affects the "work" being performed).
It's oxygen consumption that correlates kind of well with calorie burn. As we get fitter, our heart gets stronger, and pumps more blood (so more oxygen content) per heartbeat. That means it can deliver the same oxygen at a lower heart rate. Since oxygen consumption stays about the same, calorie burn is about the same. Heart rate is just a loose proxy for calorie burn, but easier to measure with an affordable portable device than oxygen consumption.
Yes, a heart rate monitor may claim a person's burning fewer calories, but that's a limitation of the device, not an accurate representation of reality. Yes, that same walking pace, same body weight, but lower heart rate will also feel easier when more fit . . . that's literally the fitness adaptation. Moving feels easier as we get fitter.
Tom's core point is right: Calorie balance determines fat loss.
Your point, that there are nuances, is also right. Those nuances via fatigue, appetite, spontaneous movement, even stuff like hair growth, core body temperature, and more. But if you think about it, if activity (broadly defined) down-regulates during weight loss (as it typically will, a bit), that means that we burn fewer calories than with up-regulated activity. It's still all about calorie balance. It's just that human bodies are dynamic, not static: Calories in unavoidably affects calories out.
You make a lot of valid points.2 -
Yes thats calories in and out more activity = more calorie burn nobody is arguing that fact.tomcustombuilder wrote: »
that’s all well and good however your overall energy balance (calories in and out) will determine what your weight does.tomcustombuilder wrote: »
will drop weight if there is an actual weekly calorie deficit consistentlyYou may be at a plateau. When we start being active we start losing weight. Then we reach a point where the body goes "hang on, I keep losing weight - am I in danger? Must conserve energy (or must eat more)." That's a plateau and it's normal. Just keep being active and at some point your body will figure out that it's not in danger and you'll start dropping the weight again.
In a perfect world yes. But reality isn't so neat. A simple example:
If the body is trying to conserve energy, your exercise isn't as intense. If you walk 3 miles a day, there's a difference between a brisk walk and a stroll. The distance is the same but the brisk walk will burn more calories because it requires a higher heart rate. The stroll will burn much less.
I was pointing out that a less vigorous version of the same exercise burns less calories. So same in, less out = more weight.
Heart rate isn’t always an indicator of how many calories are being burned0 -
tomcustombuilder wrote: »
Yes thats calories in and out more activity = more calorie burn nobody is arguing that fact.tomcustombuilder wrote: »
that’s all well and good however your overall energy balance (calories in and out) will determine what your weight does.tomcustombuilder wrote: »
will drop weight if there is an actual weekly calorie deficit consistentlyYou may be at a plateau. When we start being active we start losing weight. Then we reach a point where the body goes "hang on, I keep losing weight - am I in danger? Must conserve energy (or must eat more)." That's a plateau and it's normal. Just keep being active and at some point your body will figure out that it's not in danger and you'll start dropping the weight again.
In a perfect world yes. But reality isn't so neat. A simple example:
If the body is trying to conserve energy, your exercise isn't as intense. If you walk 3 miles a day, there's a difference between a brisk walk and a stroll. The distance is the same but the brisk walk will burn more calories because it requires a higher heart rate. The stroll will burn much less.
I was pointing out that a less vigorous version of the same exercise burns less calories. So same in, less out = more weight.
Heart rate isn’t always an indicator of how many calories are being burned
Fair point 👍2 -
tomcustombuilder wrote: »
that’s all well and good however your overall energy balance (calories in and out) will determine what your weight does.tomcustombuilder wrote: »
will drop weight if there is an actual weekly calorie deficit consistentlyYou may be at a plateau. When we start being active we start losing weight. Then we reach a point where the body goes "hang on, I keep losing weight - am I in danger? Must conserve energy (or must eat more)." That's a plateau and it's normal. Just keep being active and at some point your body will figure out that it's not in danger and you'll start dropping the weight again.
In a perfect world yes. But reality isn't so neat. A simple example:
If the body is trying to conserve energy, your exercise isn't as intense. If you walk 3 miles a day, there's a difference between a brisk walk and a stroll. The distance is the same but the brisk walk will burn more calories because it requires a higher heart rate. The stroll will burn much less.
I was pointing out that a less vigorous version of the same exercise burns less calories. So same in, less out = more weight.
Infact in terms of walking and running the same distance burns the same amount no matter if you run it or walk it. It's the energy needed to displace yourslef that is the same. You will do it faster if you run so it will be more "calories per minute" but same calories for the whole distance as walking.0 -
tomcustombuilder wrote: »
that’s all well and good however your overall energy balance (calories in and out) will determine what your weight does.tomcustombuilder wrote: »
will drop weight if there is an actual weekly calorie deficit consistentlyYou may be at a plateau. When we start being active we start losing weight. Then we reach a point where the body goes "hang on, I keep losing weight - am I in danger? Must conserve energy (or must eat more)." That's a plateau and it's normal. Just keep being active and at some point your body will figure out that it's not in danger and you'll start dropping the weight again.
In a perfect world yes. But reality isn't so neat. A simple example:
If the body is trying to conserve energy, your exercise isn't as intense. If you walk 3 miles a day, there's a difference between a brisk walk and a stroll. The distance is the same but the brisk walk will burn more calories because it requires a higher heart rate. The stroll will burn much less.
I was pointing out that a less vigorous version of the same exercise burns less calories. So same in, less out = more weight.
Infact in terms of walking and running the same distance burns the same amount no matter if you run it or walk it. It's the energy needed to displace yourslef that is the same. You will do it faster if you run so it will be more "calories per minute" but same calories for the whole distance as walking.
Well no, that's not true. Running consumes more calories than walking for the same distance:
https://exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp
And for walking and running, the calories per mile also differ according to speed.3 -
There are other factors to consider. Running instead of walking can have its issues for fatloss. NEAT may be compromised and hunger may also increase.tomcustombuilder wrote: »
that’s all well and good however your overall energy balance (calories in and out) will determine what your weight does.tomcustombuilder wrote: »
will drop weight if there is an actual weekly calorie deficit consistentlyYou may be at a plateau. When we start being active we start losing weight. Then we reach a point where the body goes "hang on, I keep losing weight - am I in danger? Must conserve energy (or must eat more)." That's a plateau and it's normal. Just keep being active and at some point your body will figure out that it's not in danger and you'll start dropping the weight again.
In a perfect world yes. But reality isn't so neat. A simple example:
If the body is trying to conserve energy, your exercise isn't as intense. If you walk 3 miles a day, there's a difference between a brisk walk and a stroll. The distance is the same but the brisk walk will burn more calories because it requires a higher heart rate. The stroll will burn much less.
I was pointing out that a less vigorous version of the same exercise burns less calories. So same in, less out = more weight.
Infact in terms of walking and running the same distance burns the same amount no matter if you run it or walk it. It's the energy needed to displace yourslef that is the same. You will do it faster if you run so it will be more "calories per minute" but same calories for the whole distance as walking.
Well no, that's not true. Running consumes more calories than walking for the same distance:
https://exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp
And for walking and running, the calories per mile also differ according to speed.
There is a guy in our neighborhood that I’ve seen running shirtless for 2 years. He started out looking probably 40 lbs overweight and now, 2 years later, he is looking about 40 lbs overweight so a good example that just because you run isn’t going to automatically cause fatloss
If someone is overweight by too much running is too hard on the knees.
Anecdotally, running has always worked better however that’s me .
1 -
tomcustombuilder wrote: »
that’s all well and good however your overall energy balance (calories in and out) will determine what your weight does.tomcustombuilder wrote: »
will drop weight if there is an actual weekly calorie deficit consistentlyYou may be at a plateau. When we start being active we start losing weight. Then we reach a point where the body goes "hang on, I keep losing weight - am I in danger? Must conserve energy (or must eat more)." That's a plateau and it's normal. Just keep being active and at some point your body will figure out that it's not in danger and you'll start dropping the weight again.
In a perfect world yes. But reality isn't so neat. A simple example:
If the body is trying to conserve energy, your exercise isn't as intense. If you walk 3 miles a day, there's a difference between a brisk walk and a stroll. The distance is the same but the brisk walk will burn more calories because it requires a higher heart rate. The stroll will burn much less.
I was pointing out that a less vigorous version of the same exercise burns less calories. So same in, less out = more weight.
Infact in terms of walking and running the same distance burns the same amount no matter if you run it or walk it. It's the energy needed to displace yourslef that is the same. You will do it faster if you run so it will be more "calories per minute" but same calories for the whole distance as walking.
Well no, that's not true. Running consumes more calories than walking for the same distance:
https://exrx.net/Aerobic/WalkCalExp
And for walking and running, the calories per mile also differ according to speed.
And that makes a lot of sense. Not so much because of the pace, but because with running you use a lot more muscles to move forward. And in running there's this short moment where both feet are off the ground compared to walking where one foot is always on the ground. In running you're basically jumping up continuously.
2 -
MFP gives me 1200 calories a day and I find that enough. I'm 216lb and 48 with low activity.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
- 232.4K 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
- 986 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions