Is this REALLY possible??

2»

Replies

  • Hoakiebs
    Hoakiebs Posts: 430 Member
    I lost 12.2 in the first 18 days, and that included 4 potluck events. But I, too, noticed that my doctor's scale and my scale are about 3 lbs. different. I just take the 3 lbs. and apply it to his scale to equal what mine tell me. Of course, I'm also naked when I weigh myself at home and fully clothed when I do it there, so that probably accounts for the majority of the three pounds.

    But it will slow down, I lost 12.2 the first 18 days, then 14.6 in January, 11.4 in February, and 6.6 in March. You just have to appreciate that it is a continual downward trend and realize that the lighter you are, the less calories you burn doing your exercises, so less weight comes off unless you really push yourself all that much harder.

    Congrats on the success so far. Keep it up. There are thousands of success stories on here and it looks like you have joined us.
  • ShellyMacchi
    ShellyMacchi Posts: 975 Member
    when i switched to a new scale there was more than a 5 pound difference... (i made sure to weigh myself on old scale before getting on new scale)...
    knowing i was going to be using new scale all the time was disheartening (a lil) because the difference was a higher weight than my old scale was showing L*).. but it all works out over time *S*

    if you only have 30 pounds to lose it seems VERY unlikely you would have feasibly lost 15 in one week *S*

    Good luck with your journey!
  • TitanGM
    TitanGM Posts: 1,161 Member

    Well, 1760 still looks too little to me since you are male and over 200lbs.

    1760 looks too low to me for your weight. Remember, when you create a big calorie deficit, it is highly likely that you are loosing muscle tissue along the way.

    OK, but the ONLY reference I have bothered with so far is MFP - *it* set the 1760 (based upon my starting weight and a projected loss of 2 lbs per week), not me!

    I understand.. I always feel that MFP has a very low standard. I personally never base my weight loss to MFP suggestion. I use MFP just to calculate macros and protein intakes. I've heard many people who have the same issue. MFP seems to put a very low standard when it comes to cals. I personally determine my calorie intake by finding my BMI and my lvl of activity. For example, if you want to know hat is your calorie limit the equation is BMI x Y (Y = is the level of activity. Y = 1.2 to 1.7. 1.2 is for those with very low daily activities, and 1.7 for those with very high levels of activities) so, your daily cal intake is: BMI x Y and after finding it you can subtract the calories needed for you to loose weight.
  • myofibril
    myofibril Posts: 4,500 Member
    It could be a number of factors but the difference in scales could be playing a big part here as well.

    In my sports club there are a number of different scales, a small one in one of the male changing rooms, a bigger one outside the main gym and others. There is literally a 7lb difference in my weight depending on which one I use. It's not so much calibrations as the surfaces they are placed on, positioning etc.

    That is why if you are using a set of scales as the only way to measure your success it is important to measure yourself at the same time, under the same conditions and on the same scale each time.

    It is not really the number that is important but the consistent pattern over time.

    I am sure you have lost a sizeable amount of weight though. It is doubtful it is 15lbs of pure body fat but it is certainly very encouraging.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Here's the kicker though, muscle only has 600 calories in it, compared to of course 3500 in fat.
    Much easier to lose a lb of muscle, plus the glucose and water it could have stored.

    That does not seem correct - site your reference.
    even if muscle is treated like protein at 4 cal per gram and fat 9 cal/gram, the muscle would be 1400 cal.

    The problem is the inefficiency of breaking the muscle back down for use as energy, which means conversion to glycogen. You end up with 600 cal's worth of energy, because most of it's weight is water, and glucose with water is more weight. Therefore on the muscle building sites you'll find a different reference to how much surplus you must take in to build a pound of muscle.
    Actually that is very debatable too for building calories required.

    Several studies, which this page pulls the stats out of, looking at the loss part of the equation.

    http://www.burnthefat.com/calories-in-a-pound-of-fat.html

    There are also several pages like this, that pull the info together.

    It's interesting though the equation you did, and proves the point the math doesn't always workout like you might think.

    With fat at 9 cal per gram, what would a lb of fat have?
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member

    Here's the kicker though, muscle only has 600 calories in it, compared to of course 3500 in fat.
    Much easier to lose a lb of muscle, plus the glucose and water it could have stored.

    That does not seem correct - site your reference.
    even if muscle is treated like protein at 4 cal per gram and fat 9 cal/gram, the muscle would be 1400 cal.

    here are a few,


    http://www.burnthefat.com/calories-in-a-pound-of-fat.html

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html

    http://www.jimcordova.com/articles/details.php?id=17


    I know it's in the text that I've studied from ("Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism - 5th edition") but I'll have to look up the chapter and page number, which may take a little while.
    Let me see if it's in my structural kinesiology book, it might be (although I doubt it, it's not a nutrition book).

    I've known about this fact for a long time so I don't keep my sources at the top of my head on this one. You'll have to bear with me as I look up where to find it.

    but you'll probably be able to note that if you take 95% lean ground beef on any calorie site, put 1 lb in as the amount, and you'll get between 600 and 800 calories for it, take out the 5 % fat and you're looking at approximately 600 some odd calories. For instance, go to www.calorieking.com and look up 95% lean ground beef broiled (I couldn't find it raw) and put in 1 lb (4 servings of 4 oz) you'll get somewhat close, but that includes some fat as well. I recognize that this isn't a perfect comparison, but essentially this is muscle, with a little fat thrown in, and you're in the same ballpark, within about 10% of the 600.
  • engineman312
    engineman312 Posts: 3,450 Member
    its the best part about being a guy.
    I doubt that.


    lol i doubt it too!!!

    You're right. Writing our name in the snow is much better
  • ranger195
    ranger195 Posts: 8 Member
    I am having similar results at OP, Going on day 9 and I have lost just over 12 pounds. All on the same scale, weighing at the same time.

    I started at 207 with a goal of 30 pounds total loss. Im doing strong cardio daily with limited weights and jogging when possible.

    MY MFP target calorie amount is 1210 per day and I have made it all but one time, and the next morning I gained .4 lbs.

    Right or wrong Im a believer!!!
  • Jmstill300
    Jmstill300 Posts: 239 Member
    It's TOTALLY possible! I lost 24 lbs in my first month.
  • Mrsfullwood
    Mrsfullwood Posts: 172 Member
    I've been doing this for 2 weeks and I lost 6lbs the first week and then I lost 1.8lbs last week. My mother told me it probably was water weight the first week. So I guess it is possible.
  • ding30180
    ding30180 Posts: 53 Member
    Well, I guess whatever the truth is, there has definitely been some kind of result so it's time to simply press on.
  • Oishii
    Oishii Posts: 2,675 Member

    Well, 1760 still looks too little to me since you are male and over 200lbs.

    1760 looks too low to me for your weight. Remember, when you create a big calorie deficit, it is highly likely that you are loosing muscle tissue along the way.

    OK, but the ONLY reference I have bothered with so far is MFP - *it* set the 1760 (based upon my starting weight and a projected loss of 2 lbs per week), not me!

    I understand.. I always feel that MFP has a very low standard. I personally never base my weight loss to MFP suggestion. I use MFP just to calculate macros and protein intakes. I've heard many people who have the same issue. MFP seems to put a very low standard when it comes to cals. I personally determine my calorie intake by finding my BMI and my lvl of activity. For example, if you want to know hat is your calorie limit the equation is BMI x Y (Y = is the level of activity. Y = 1.2 to 1.7. 1.2 is for those with very low daily activities, and 1.7 for those with very high levels of activities) so, your daily cal intake is: BMI x Y and after finding it you can subtract the calories needed for you to loose weight.

    I think you mean BMR, not BMI (body mass index).

    To the OP, MFP got it completely wrong for me. It thought I should eat 1200 kcal, but it turns out that is around 50% or less of my TDEE, as measured via logging during maintenance. 1200 is very close to starvation for me, and I upped my calories as I was losing too fast.

    Once the scale issue is resolved, think about whether mfp's targets are right for you. It's a great sign that you're questioning the numbers.

Categories