No weight loss - confused....

Options
MelanieAG05
MelanieAG05 Posts: 359 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I've been logging all my food, done loads of exercise and have netted the following calories per day this last week:

Sun -500
Mon 1400
Tues 500
Weds 1000
Thurs 1100
Friday 1300

My calories goal without exercise is 1250 per day. I have exercised 5 days this week burning approx 400-500 cals each time so I'm really confused as to why I have not lost any weight!! Help!! My instructor at the gym says I may have lost body fat and increased muscle. The annoying thing is that I feel slimmer!!
«1

Replies

  • Chairless
    Chairless Posts: 588 Member
    Options
    Muscle gain may contribute but there's a whole load of stuff going on that doesn't show on the scale. I wouldn't worry about it for a second, maybe if it doesn't change in 2-3 weeks then start having a closer look at your logging and make sure your calories are not being underestimated and exercise overestimated.

    Main thing is though, give it time and measure, don't just weigh.
  • HugznKiki
    HugznKiki Posts: 170 Member
    Options
    I had the same issue, but once I cut out my (almost daily) glass of wine or cocktail, and upped my protein, and pushed myself to my limits in my workouts I started to see the scale move. And at one point the scale did stop moving, but I then started to lose inches!! The most important thing is to just push through, even when your not seeing the results you want. Don't give up on yourself.
  • ProTFitness
    ProTFitness Posts: 1,379 Member
    Options
    The scale does not tell the whole truth. Alot of things play a role. PS Muscle Does NOT weigh more and you Can Not gain it fast. Measuments and body fat testing is the best way.
  • timingsands
    timingsands Posts: 83
    Options
    I am having the exact same problem. My calories are under my weekly goal and yet no difference in weight, but my stomach and other areas have gone down...according to the tape measure. I know it's best not to obsess over scale weight and as long as we continue to eat at a deficit and exercise we WILL lose weight, but it is frustrating never the less...
  • BeautyFromPain
    BeautyFromPain Posts: 4,952 Member
    Options
    PEOPLE! You need to eat MORE to lose weight! Eat your exercise calories! Sigh
  • emergencytennis
    emergencytennis Posts: 864 Member
    Options
    I hear you, but a week is nothing weight-loss-wise. I know you want to see those scales dive, but a week is too short a time to be able to assess your progress. Water retention alone could mask any true fat-burning you have achieved. Keep up that great work and see where you are a month from now.
  • stroutman81
    stroutman81 Posts: 2,474 Member
    Options
    duplicate
  • stroutman81
    stroutman81 Posts: 2,474 Member
    Options
    I agree. A week is not enough time to assess anything. At least 2 weeks... I actually have my clients focus on monthly rates of weight loss.

    Also, I highly suggest reading the following page:

    www.body-improvements.com/resources/eat

    Pay close attention to the calories, nutrients, and plateaus sections.
  • stroutman81
    stroutman81 Posts: 2,474 Member
    Options
    duplicate
  • peanut_parker2
    peanut_parker2 Posts: 27 Member
    Options
    I'm going through the same thing right now..I'm thinking I'm gonna cut dinner out completely and not eat past 4 bcuz my prob is I eat too late and too heavy b4 bed and lastime I lost alot of weight I had cut out dinner but ate 2 good healthy meals for breakfast and lunch
  • SpeedBump1
    SpeedBump1 Posts: 74 Member
    Options
    I had the same problem at one time. I noticed my clothes were fitting much better but the scale did not move. I began drinking more water, decreased my sodium intake to around 1500, stopped eating grains, beans and peanuts. My weight does fluctuate due to not enough water and more sodium (my fault) but following this has helped me a lot. Every person is different.
  • stroutman81
    stroutman81 Posts: 2,474 Member
    Options
    I'm going through the same thing right now..I'm thinking I'm gonna cut dinner out completely and not eat past 4 bcuz my prob is I eat too late and too heavy b4 bed and lastime I lost alot of weight I had cut out dinner but ate 2 good healthy meals for breakfast and lunch

    But you likely lost the weight before not because you stopped eating late, but because you controlled your calories by nixing an entire meal. In my experience, people do better by spreading their calories out across the entire day. It tends to keep them most satiated.

    If you feel best eating all of your calories in the AM though, that's one thing. Just don't apply such rigidity to the mix for some misled reason having to do calories eaten in the PM get stored as fat. As long as your net energy balance is negative at the end of the day, that's what really matters.

    Oh, and if you ARE going to eat only in the first half of the day, it'd likely be best to train during the AM too.
  • jecka31
    jecka31 Posts: 284
    Options
    You want to make sure your net calories (how much you eat minus how much you burn) doesn't go under 1200 for the day. Doing it once in a while isn't going to hurt but if you do it several days in a row, your body thinks its starving because its not getting enough nutrients to function at a basal level. Once this switch is thrown, your body starts hoarding anything you eat in effect to make sure you have the fuel you need to keep your heart beating and other organs functioning.

    If you are getting the right amount of calories and have added weight training, it is very possible you have added muscle mass. Muscle weighs more than fat so it appears as though you didn't lose any weight. If you feel slimmer as you said, I'd suspect this is what is happening. More lean muscle = more calories burned sitting still (aka your basal metabolic rate is higher), a good thing :smile: .

    Like others have suggested, I wouldn't worry about a week. If you continue for a few weeks and still don't see a loss, I'd re-evaluate your diet and exercise. Good luck!
  • Megan2Project
    Megan2Project Posts: 351 Member
    Options
    Are you just starting out with exercise, or upping intesity?? If so your muscles tend to store extra water to help with repairs after, and it may take a while for your body to release it.

    Also, are you drinking enough water, keeping sodium down? Water can play a HUGE role in scale lies.
  • stroutman81
    stroutman81 Posts: 2,474 Member
    Options
    You want to make sure your net calories (how much you eat minus how much you burn) doesn't go under 1200 for the day. Doing it once in a while isn't going to hurt but if you do it several days in a row, your body thinks its starving because its not getting enough nutrients to function at a basal level. Once this switch is thrown, your body starts hoarding anything you eat in effect to make sure you have the fuel you need to keep your heart beating and other organs functioning.

    If you are getting the right amount of calories and have added weight training, it is very possible you have added muscle mass. Muscle weighs more than fat so it appears as though you didn't lose any weight. If you feel slimmer as you said, I'd suspect this is what is happening. More lean muscle = more calories burned sitting still (aka your basal metabolic rate is higher), a good thing :smile: .

    Like others have suggested, I wouldn't worry about a week. If you continue for a few weeks and still don't see a loss, I'd re-evaluate your diet and exercise. Good luck!

    I highly suggest reading the starvation mode section of the following webpage:

    www.body-improvements.com/resources/eat

    Put simply, there's no set calorie intake that our bodies recognize as a floor for turning starvation mode on or off. The set of biological adaptations associated with calorie deficits will occur regardless of how large the deficit is. It's just that at bigger deficits, they'll happen faster and at smaller deficits, they'll happen later.

    But all roads lead to the same place.

    Trust me, I'm an advocate of eating as many calories as possible while still allowing for a sufficient rate of fat loss. But the fact remains that 1200 isn't a universal threshold that's biologically hardwired into each of us.
  • agthorn
    agthorn Posts: 1,844 Member
    Options
    Trust me, I'm an advocate of eating as many calories as possible while still allowing for a sufficient rate of fat loss. But the fact remains that 1200 isn't a universal threshold that's biologically hardwired into each of us.
    I agree. But MFP did give her 1250 as a target, and she's netting an average of 800 instead. And I'd hope we can all agree that one should NEVER have a negative net day.
  • stroutman81
    stroutman81 Posts: 2,474 Member
    Options
    Trust me, I'm an advocate of eating as many calories as possible while still allowing for a sufficient rate of fat loss. But the fact remains that 1200 isn't a universal threshold that's biologically hardwired into each of us.
    I agree. But MFP did give her 1250 as a target, and she's netting an average of 800 instead. And I'd hope we can all agree that one should NEVER have a negative net day.

    I was responding specifically to the remark about 1200 triggering starvation mode. Which is simply unfounded.

    And what do you believe happens if we have ONE "negative net" day? Just curious.
  • jecka31
    jecka31 Posts: 284
    Options

    Trust me, I'm an advocate of eating as many calories as possible while still allowing for a sufficient rate of fat loss. But the fact remains that 1200 isn't a universal threshold that's biologically hardwired into each of us.

    I'm just going by what I have learned during my Master in Science courses in Biochemistry. Granted, 1200 may not apply to everyone but it is an average of the human population. Our bodies need a set amount of nutrients (aka calories) to function. If we go below this threshold, you will turn on "starvation mode" where you cells shuttle a portion of the nutrients (whether it be carbs, protein or fats) into storage macromolecules (glycogen, polypeptides and fatty acids). Numerous research has been done on this and you will actually begin to gain weight. If you stay below what you need to function on a basal level, your body burns any access sugars (glycogen) first, followed by fatty acids and then will start to breakdown your own muscle to provide fuel. Granted, it takes an extended state of starvation to reach this point and the more overweight you are, the longer you have before you hit this point.
  • stroutman81
    stroutman81 Posts: 2,474 Member
    Options

    Trust me, I'm an advocate of eating as many calories as possible while still allowing for a sufficient rate of fat loss. But the fact remains that 1200 isn't a universal threshold that's biologically hardwired into each of us.

    I'm just going by what I have learned during my Master in Science courses in Biochemistry. Granted, 1200 may not apply to everyone but it is an average of the human population. Our bodies need a set amount of nutrients (aka calories) to function. If we go below this threshold, you will turn on "starvation mode" where you cells shuttle a portion of the nutrients (whether it be carbs, protein or fats) into storage macromolecules (glycogen, polypeptides and fatty acids). Numerous research has been done on this and you will actually begin to gain weight. If you stay below what you need to function on a basal level, your body burns any access sugars (glycogen) first, followed by fatty acids and then will start to breakdown your own muscle to provide fuel. Granted, it takes an extended state of starvation to reach this point and the more overweight you are, the longer you have before you hit this point.

    Sounds like your course was based on outdated material.

    For starters, can you give me links to your resources pertaining to gaining weight when an energy deficit is too large?

    Secondly, you might be interested in reading the following papers:

    http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004377

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=2613403

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/56/1/275S.long

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=2341229

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=8363198

    As for the breakdown of muscle, we can't blanketly discuss things like this without factoring in diet composition and exercise dose and form. For example, something like a protein sparing modified fast paired with volume-regulated, high intensity strength training has been shown time and time again to preserve muscle in the face of significant calorie deficits.
  • agthorn
    agthorn Posts: 1,844 Member
    Options
    And what do you believe happens if we have ONE "negative net" day? Just curious.
    Well, I know *I'D* be very hungry, tired, and cranky.

    I'm not saying that one's metabolism is going to instantaneously come screeching to a halt. But I think that having a negative net day certainly means that you're not getting anywhere near enough nutrition, especially since the only way you're going to get a negative net in your log is to eat very little in conjunction with exercise. I think some people get confused and think that if they see -500 then that means they had a 500-calorie deficit for the day. I've posted in threads where people thought their net needed to be zero at the end of the day.

    Maybe it's okay to have negative nets under a doctor's supervision, I don't know (I thought most medically supervised VLCDs were a 400-500 net) but I think it's pretty safe to say for the purposes of this site, we don't want negative nets.

Categories