OMG Ya'll. Still not Losing.

You need to eat breakfast and get 20minutes of exercise in the morning in order to rev up your metabolism. This is from a very famous fitness and nutrition trainer that Oprah used for years. I'm not sure of his name. I know this works. Also be patient. Keep doing healthy things that you can live with for the rest of your life and it will happen. Trying clothes on is always a better measurement for me.

I said authorities use 1200 calories or 1000 calorie deficit/per day as the recommended floor. You said I didn't 'define too low'. I don't define anything. I'm just saying what the authorities say.

I'm not being confrontational either. I know it sounds like it. I just am tired of hearing this advice dished out here left and right like it's gospel. People misunderstand BMR. Look at it this way-- losing fat requires a caloric deficit. SOME bodily activity is going to be 'funded' by calories in fat cells, rather than in today's food. We don't get to pick which day's calories fuel which activities. All that matters is that there is a deficit and that it's not too steep to neglect our bodies' needs for daily fiber, essential amino and fatty acids, satiety, that sort of thing. Energy is not addressed by today's calories alone. Stored calories hold the exact same energy as today's calories (3500 to a lb.) That's what a calorie is, by definition. A unit of energy.

I think we are on very similar pages. My route is safer and more controlled though. Given that even your source (A guy with a big chest) even agreed with me is nicely re-assuring.

"Authorities" tend to be so because they have data, facts, and science to back them up. They rarely go on "Just because I believe".

I won't ever recommend a person starve themselves to be skinny. As I mentioned, that is anorexia, and I will NOT promote it. I will promote a healthy lifestyle that includes eating proper foods in the proper amounts in combination with resistance and cardio training.

Yikes....

To the OP, there is a lot of bad information in this thread.. And I know it is impossible to discern who knows what they are talking about and who, through best of intentions, are passing along meaningless information, but since you have asked for opinions you will get everything here and I leave it to you to discern your best choices.

Here are my thoughts:

Studies regularly show time of day eating is meaningless to weight *loss* unless the eating pattern results in a decrease in calorie intake... So the key is simply finding a pattern of eating that meets your needs, helps you feel satisfied, and helps you meet your calorie goals.

The scale is very very fickle, your body weight fluctuates a lot for a number of reasons including water retention for a whole bunch of reason (newly started workouts often results in temporary water retention being held as part of the process to repair muscle tissue - this water retention typically goes away after a few weeks; high sodium foods can rigger retention, monthly cycles, etc) as well as differences in waste retention depending on the nature of food eaten in the period prior to weighing, etc....

So trust this... If you are eating below your daily expenditure, and you are doing workouts that will help you retain your muscle mass, and you have protein to also help in muscle retention, your body will shed fat... Sometimes it will show up clearly in the scale, and other times it won't be immediately apparent... But it is happening...

I'd suggest you simply keep doing what you are doing for a little bit longer and be patient... Most of us didn't gain our weight quickly and won't lose it quickly - slow and steady wins the race here. Small adjustments may be necessary, but you will need to take some time to dial in what you are doing and how your body is responding.... You can be certain that if you see the scale go up and you have, for say the past week overall (as opposed to any individual day) , been under your daily expenditure ... Then you are seeing other things being measured by the scale than just fat and lean mass - extra water, more waste, whatever. The body simply cannot create mass from nothing and can't simply do silly things like 'store all food intake as fat' etc like you may read just because you have a low cal day....

Good luck in your journey and I hope this is helpful!

Edited for typos

Looked at your diary. Try drinking more water. Aim for 64 oz/day, and see what happens from there.

How do you look at someone else's food diary? thanks

TDEE, BMR, BREAKFAST (which I don't eat, thanks very much) aside:

Are you using a food scale? The only thing I noticed is that a lot of your foods are home made or generic (which I think is a great thing -- if you are cooking so you know what you are eating) food. Before I got a food scale a few years ago, I would use measuring cups and guesstimates. Then I got a scale and realized that A LOT of the time I was either eating way more or why less than an actual serving. That helped a lot.

I also resisted working out when I was first losing -- then I got to about my goal weight and didn't look how I wanted to look - I tried dropping another 20 pounds -- which I have been "trying" for like 8 years. Finally I gave in and started working out -- I have only lost 2 pounds but have lost nearly 20 total body inches in 6 weeks. I look like I weigh 10-15 pounds less. So definitely do two things: measure yourself and work out.

That's all I got. Good luck to you.

He did it for over 18 months and was just fine. I by no means have fasted, but have not eaten anywhere close to my BMR for over a year, so by your argument I am anorexic and about to die from organ failure

If you are eating as low as you are, you very may well technically be anorexic. And organ failure occurs from long term and severely reduced calories. It is a medical fact, not some hocus pocus I am making up. The rate at which organ damage occurs depends on the number of calories eaten in comparison to BMR as well as a few health factors.

I don't care what "He did" and being "Just fine" is HARDLY a medically sound opinion based on factual evidence.

DO NOT promote anorexia in the forums. It is against forum policy. If you cannot come up with a better suggestion than STARVE YOURSELF for people, do not bother.

The fact that I am not quoting the medical journal has nothing to do with no "sound medical advice" I by any means am nowhere near anorexic, 178 lbs is NOT anorexic. I was going by YOUR definition to show you how barbaric your reasoning is. Just because I don't eat 1,587 cals a day does not mean I am harming myself. My goal is to lose FAT which is stored up in my body and needs to be burned off. If I eat the cals I plan to burn every day, that will get me nowhere or see decimal changes every week. I don't know about you, but I really don't want to take years to lose weight, I change my lifestyle and along with that comes a healthier and smaller me. Just because someone doesn't believe what you do just like those stuck on "starvation mode" doesn't mean there is no other way around it or no other opinion out there, get off your high horse or show me your medical degree.

I'm not being confrontational either. I know it sounds like it. I just am tired of hearing this advice dished out here left and right like it's gospel. People misunderstand BMR. Look at it this way-- losing fat requires a caloric deficit. SOME bodily activity is going to be 'funded' by calories in fat cells, rather than in today's food. We don't get to pick which day's calories fuel which activities. All that matters is that there is a deficit and that it's not too steep to neglect our bodies' needs for daily fiber, essential amino and fatty acids, satiety, that sort of thing. Energy is not addressed by today's calories alone. Stored calories hold the exact same energy as today's calories (3500 to a lb.) That's what a calorie is, by definition. A unit of energy.

Agreed. And, for those of us here are are bigger folks, there is absolutely no way I will loose weight eating my suggested BMR. At 280 lbs and 6' tall, most BMR calcs put me in the 2,400 calories per day range. I know this doesn't work for me because that's around what I ate for years (while still working out) and I steadily gained weight left and right.

I've been on 1,500 (which according to the BMR calc is 48% under my reccomended BMR). Yet, I am not feeling down, weak, etc.

Each of our bodies are different, and each of us has to find that magic balance between food and healthy weight loss. There is no magic calculation that works for everyone, we are all just too diverse. I am finding it is more an art form, then direct calculations.

THIS ^^^^^^^^

People get very touchy on the topic of BMR, TDEE, net cal whatever. OP I think you should consult with a professional if you are really concerned about how much and what you should eat.

You have lost a decent amount of weight thus far. It could be that you are about to start you menstrual cycle or any other factor. One week of not seeing a loss is nothing major. I would say give it three weeks at least.

Good luck to you!

John Barban has a masters in exercise physiology and he doesn't agree with you. He said eating WELL BELOW your BMR (as in crash/starvation diets, as in 500 calories) for very long periods will of course result in muscle loss.

Anorexia is very rare. Only one in 10,000-20,000 people have it. You don't need to worry about the lady in this thread. She doesn't.

No one's saying starve themselves.

Here's an example. I'm not particularly young, large, tall or male, so my BMR is fairly low, probably around 1450. I also have a desk job so my TDEE is only 1800ish often. So if I had to eat between those values, that's a whopping 350 calories of deficit I can create per day. According to MFP wisdom, I can't even grow that by being more active because I'm supposed to 'eat back' exercise calories. So under this method, even though I'm 20 lbs. over the top of healthy BMI, I can only aim to lose 3 lbs/month. 350 calories/3500 calories = 1 lb. every 10 days or so. So I have to spend nearly TEN MONTHS to lose 25 lbs.

All authorities say I can safely aim to lose 2 lbs/week. So according to everything except MFP forum wisdom, I can lose my 25 lbs. in about 3 months, not 10. That's a HUGE difference. Are you saying if I lose 2 lbs/week, I'm anorexic? Or on a starvation diet? This is what Weight Watchers allows, Mayo Clinic, every published diet in the last several decades says 2 lbs/week is perfectly healthy.

You don't have to eat back your calories. The "eating back your calories" thing depends on many factors. Basically, the amount of body fat you have on you determines the safe level of a calorie deficit you can handle. (Mine for example is about 998 calorie deficit).

My BMR is about 1500 and my TDEE is about 1900. If I eat 1600 a day, I have a 300 deficit. I can safely exercise an extra 698 calories. If I exercise 998 calories, I now have a 1298 calorie deficit. This is now unhealthy for me. So, I need to eat back 300.

And see, the problem here is that these weight loss goals people have here ARE for long periods of time. So, telling them its okay to eat below their BMR for long periods of time IS anorexia. I'm cool for several days in a row or a day here and there etc. That's A-Ok, totally normal.

But, telling someone to go ahead and eat 500 calories a day or what not for a a year or more to match their weight loss goals... no. I will not ever suggest that.

Hi Jaimi

You are doing great... keep it simple. I have been back on MFP for 2 weeks myself.

Dana, Pettigrew and Ange all have good posts. After 3 wks you should be seeing better results. SO, my .02, is all about fine tuning. Be better about logging all meals (ESPECIALLY snacks/ cheats, etc), weigh yourself at the same time daily, and be prepared for some ups and downs. I started at 210.1 two weeks ago and weighed in at 204.1 this AM.

For me? Nothing crazy--- simple stuff. I log EVERYTHING during the week, give myself the weekend to prove I have good habits, and Sunday is a free day.

So far here are MY biggest contributors to 6 pounds in 2 weeks:

--Log EVERYTHING Mon-Fri
--Weigh-ins at 7AM each morning before coffee
--Add an "Alcohol" Category to your settings (if you drank it, you record it)
--2 beers/ wines a day, or exercise to support more
--WATER -- keep a 32 oz screw-bottle at your desk; drink 1/day
--NO box-foods, prepackaged stuff, and if I eat out - eat half and "doggie-bag" the rest for tomorrow
--NO buffalo chicken wings of ANY kind (fried, baked, boiled). 80-190 calories each is not worth it to me now.
--Fresh cubed ahi/ salmon on lunch salads

I've noticed HUGE decrease in my snacking appetite with just the water and fish (which is huge in protein). Personally, I was "snack cheating" about 400 calories a day before I realized it was my problem.

I hope this helps some.
Joe

You don't have to eat back your calories. The "eating back your calories" thing depends on many factors. Basically, the amount of body fat you have on you determines the safe level of a calorie deficit you can handle. (Mine for example is about 998 calorie deficit).

My BMR is about 1500 and my TDEE is about 1900. If I eat 1600 a day, I have a 300 deficit. I can safely exercise an extra 698 calories. If I exercise 998 calories, I now have a 1298 calorie deficit. This is now unhealthy for me. So, I need to eat back 300.

And see, the problem here is that these weight loss goals people have here ARE for long periods of time. So, telling them its okay to eat below their BMR for long periods of time IS anorexia. I'm cool for several days in a row or a day here and there etc. That's A-Ok, totally normal.

But, telling someone to go ahead and eat 500 calories a day or what not for a a year or more to match their weight loss goals... no. I will not ever suggest that.

I don't know where you're getting 500 calories a day from. What your plan for you is is fine. All I'm saying is please stop saying "It's dangerous to eat below your BMR" or "You can't eat below your BMR". MFP uses 1200 as a floor. That's plenty conservative. There's no need to make it moreso by adding forum myths into the equation, especially when people add the "you have to EAT BACK" myth. (Obviously, if not 'eating back' puts you at more than 2 lbs/week loss, it's not recommended, but otherwise there's no reason you have to 'eat back'.)

Off my soap box.

You need to eat breakfast, coffee alone is not good enough. Poptarts are not a good choice. You need to cut back on the chinese food and desserts. Drink diet soda if you must drink soda.

You need to eat breakfast, coffee alone is not good enough. Poptarts are not a good choice. You need to cut back on the chinese food and desserts. Drink diet soda if you must drink soda.

Some people don't like eating breakfast. Eating breakfast or not doesn't affect weight loss.

Using this as conversation starter, I am not speaking of the poster of this comment at all, since I don't know her.

I by any means am nowhere near anorexic, 178 lbs is NOT anorexic.

It is my understanding from things that I have read (and I don't have time to dig out sources as I am at work) that while a person who is overweight could never meet the clinical physical definition of anorexia, that person could still be eating disordered and meet the psychological definition (eventually leading to the physical). The person could exhibit the behaviors of an anorexic (or bulimic) person and that person could still do harm to their body.