I appreciate your advice but saying my diet is terrible is a huge exaggeration. Its not like I am eating nothing but french fries and milkshakes all day. I am trying hard to be healthy. I live in a college dorm and I don't have a kitchen. I only eat foods that have nutrition labels on them so I can count my calories accurately. So, my diet basically consists of anything i can cook in a microwave like oatmeal and frozen dinners(I always eat the "Amy's" organic frozen dinners which aren't as unhealthy as other brands and are preservative free), the prepared sandwiches at the dining places(like egg salad sandwiches, turkey sandwiches and, veggie wraps), salads, yogurt, and cottage cheese.
What is wrong with grains? Everything we eat turns to glucose in our bodies. If grains were so awful, why would the USDA recommend that we consume about 6 servings per day? According to my nutrition textbook, there is no real evidence suggesting that consuming low gi foods contribute to weight loss or consuming high gi foods contribute to weight gain.
As for the coffee, I forgot to mention that I drink decaf. I don't like the affect caffeine has on me. Also, 1 serving of sugar isn't going to harm me as it has only 16 calories and 4 grams of sugar.
Okay, okay; I figured I'd get some anger from some folks. Let me rephrase a few things.
First off, we're talking infinitesimal weight changes here; i.e. you're trying to shave off a few pounds where you already have a trim/acceptable figure. That in mind, most of what I said may seem exaggerated, but in an effort to "do everything we can" to assess the situation and hopefully help you lose weight, we have to look at all these things. I didn't mean to come off like you are "eating french fries all day," as you aren't coming close.
Grains: Sorry, folks, you can't show me any grain product that is going to beat a vegetable, particularly a leafy green one, in calories, dietary fiber, glycemic index, and omega 6 to 3 value (which again, is absolutely awful in oatmeal). I'm not saying a slice of bread here or there's going to kill you, but hey; you're trying to trim the fat and what you're doing isn't working for you. Just because the "USDA says so" doesn't make it agree with one's body. The USDA is often well behind the curb, and definitely so in this case as it not only advocates 3 servings of dairy, but 3 servings of low-fat dairy, of which I'm certain there are plenty of studies damning the casein and opiates of milk for allergies and addictions they cause, as well as (again) the inefficacy of low-fat and no fat diets in ending obesity, diabetes, et cetera. Omega imbalance, for one, hasn't even hit their radar. If you look at a scatter plot of difference in American rates of heart disease and say, Inuit and eastern respective rates of heart disease in that last category (omega fats), you'll see the regression line has very little variance. Seems like the USDA oughtta get on such powerful evidence. Rant off, do you honestly think 6-11 servings a day of bread is a healthy choice?
Perhaps there isn't any causation currently linking glycemic index and obesity, I'd have to go look at some studies, but there certainly is an inverse relationship between weight and consumption of low glycemic foods.
As for the "not having a kitchen," I must say (maybe rudely, ha ha) that I find that a cop out. Macadamia nuts and most fruits and vegetables are pretty ready-to-eat, and if you have a microwave you can steam them and even fish for that matter. There's tuna and sardines in cans, you know, whatever. I just think frozen, packaged food is a no-go. I might have an Amy's meal now and again, as well, but I'm not sure I purchased them for their ease of use when, in all honesty, fruits and vegetables are easier. Not that I don't trust Amy, but you're definitely going to see something on that ingredient label that you wouldn't have put in there had you made the dish yourself. All of this is pretty unrelated to weight loss I guess, me rambling about my hard-arsed view on nutrition mostly, but hey.
Anyway, not trying to turn this into the debate it has turned into. Hope you will take me up on some of the suggestions, and lose those (or maybe "that") pound(s) you're tryin' to! I'll take back the "terrible," in any case.
Okay, okay; I figured I'd get some anger from some folks. Let me rephrase a few things.
First off, we're talking infinitesimal weight changes here; i.e. you're trying to shave off a few pounds where you already have a trim/acceptable figure. That in mind, most of what I said may seem exaggerated, but in an effort to "do everything we can" to assess the situation and hopefully help you lose weight, we have to look at all these things. I didn't mean to come off like you are "eating french fries all day," as you aren't coming close.
Grains: Sorry, folks, you can't show me any grain product that is going to beat a vegetable, particularly a leafy green one, in calories, dietary fiber, glycemic index, and omega 6 to 3 value (which again, is absolutely awful in oatmeal). I'm not saying a slice of bread here or there's going to kill you, but hey; you're trying to trim the fat and what you're doing isn't working for you. Just because the "USDA says so" doesn't make it agree with one's body. The USDA is often well behind the curb, and definitely so in this case as it not only advocates 3 servings of dairy, but 3 servings of low-fat dairy, of which I'm certain there are plenty of studies damning the casein and opiates of milk for allergies and addictions they cause, as well as (again) the inefficacy of low-fat and no fat diets in ending obesity, diabetes, et cetera. Omega imbalance, for one, hasn't even hit their radar. If you look at a scatter plot of difference in American rates of heart disease and say, Inuit and eastern respective rates of heart disease in that last category (omega fats), you'll see the regression line has very little variance. Seems like the USDA oughtta get on such powerful evidence. Rant off, do you honestly think 6-11 servings a day of bread is a healthy choice?
Perhaps there isn't any causation currently linking glycemic index and obesity, I'd have to go look at some studies, but there certainly is an inverse relationship between weight and consumption of low glycemic foods.
As for the "not having a kitchen," I must say (maybe rudely, ha ha) that I find that a cop out. Macadamia nuts and most fruits and vegetables are pretty ready-to-eat, and if you have a microwave you can steam them and even fish for that matter. There's tuna and sardines in cans, you know, whatever. I just think frozen, packaged food is a no-go. I might have an Amy's meal now and again, as well, but I'm not sure I purchased them for their ease of use when, in all honesty, fruits and vegetables are easier. Not that I don't trust Amy, but you're definitely going to see something on that ingredient label that you wouldn't have put in there had you made the dish yourself. All of this is pretty unrelated to weight loss I guess, me rambling about my hard-arsed view on nutrition mostly, but hey.
Anyway, not trying to turn this into the debate it has turned into. Hope you will take me up on some of the suggestions, and lose those (or maybe "that") pound(s) you're tryin' to! I'll take back the "terrible," in any case.
I found no real evidence stating that diets lower in omega 6 fatty acids and diets higher in omega 3 fatty acids contribute to weight loss. I read a lot about how omega 3s help with inflammation therefore lowering the risk of heart disease and helping with joint pain. There are tons of possible benefits of omega 3s but a lot of the "benefits" are not confirmed. And I can't steam vegetables or eat macadamia nuts, sardines, and tuna. I am on a meal plan so I can only buy foods that the food store at my school sells. The store happens to have Amy's frozen dinners.
Oh, I didn't mean to imply omega 3s have anything to do with weight loss; you're right, they're more targeted toward controlling inflammation. I just wanted to caution you against eating a food like oatmeal, as a general rule of health.
By all means, eat the Amy's; I really am unsure why you can't go to a store and buy the simple things I mentioned, but I do know what being in college is like (budget, budget, budget) so I could see variables that might be stopping you.
I think we're at square one again, though; either your body simply refuses to get any more spindly with the healthful amount of calories (deficit be damned) or you're taking in more chocolate than you're telling us; heh heh. Wouldn't blame you, but if it's the prior (especially if you're weight training at the gym) then I wouldn't bother trying to force it.
Have you considered high-intensity interval training?
I don't have any money. That is why I can't go to a store and buy food. I am stuck with the stuff I can get with my "points". (Money allotted to me to spend on food that my school offers).
I am definitely eating 1350 calories per day with maybe 250-300 of those calories being devoted to "junk food". Maybe the nutrition labels I am reading are inaccurate, but there isn't really anything I can do about that. And I do interval training on the elliptical. 2 minutes at 60-70% effort followed by a minute of 80-90% effort.
i don't know. I am just going to keep doing what I have been doing for the next few weeks. I find it hard to believe that i shot my metabolism by eating 900 calories for 2 weeks but, maybe my metabolism is still recovering.
I am 19 years old, 5' 1, and my starting weight was 105 pounds. I know this is a healthy weight but I would still like to lose a few pounds of excess body fat and just tone up. I started dieting 3 weeks ago. For the 1st two weeks I ate around 900 calories per day and exercised for an hour per day. Over the course of 10 days my weight went down to 101 pounds. 4 days later though, at the 2 week mark, my weight shot up to 103 pounds without me changing my calorie consumption or workout regime. I read online that if you eat too few calories your metabolism slowing down causing weight loss to cease. After learning this I decided to up my calories to 1350 per day. This number is about 400 below what my maintenance calories should be. For the past week I have been eating 1350 calories per day and continuing to work out for an hour per day (cardio and weight lifting). I weighed myself this morning and the scale read 105.5 pounds! So, what is going on!? I should be losing weight but instead I am steadily gaining. I am so confused about what is happening right now and I am beyond frustrated.
I would appreciate any insightful tips. Thank you for reading.
You dropped 4 pounds within 10 days because you were eating far less than usual-- hence, less water weight and food weight in your body. Most of this loss would not have been fat. When you started eating more, the water weight & food weight was back, pushing the scale weight back up. Additionally, when you first begin weight training, you are apt to retain water in your muscles while they repair themselves, and because you were eating more, you would have increased glycogen storage in your muscles... All of this would cause you to weigh more in terms of scale weight.
Three weeks is no time at all. Fat loss when you are already small takes more time. Step back and take a breath and trust that results will come eventually! (And yes, as you know, calories in/calories out is what it boils down to, so keep at it.) Also, taking measurements is a good idea (waist, hips, bust, etc), as well as photos. Measurements going down or looking better in pics is a good indicator of progress.
If I can add my own 2 cents, if I were you, I wouldn't be dieting right now. If you want to "tone up," I assume that what you want is to build a little muscle and lose a little fat. If you are just starting weight training for the first time, or first getting serious/consistent about it, you're likely to have a 6-month window at the beginning where you can build muscle more easily than people who have been training for longer (these are the so-called "newbie gains"). You will gain more muscle if you're eating at maintenance than if you eat at a deficit (at a deficit, you're likely to build very little, if any; you could even lose muscle, if you're not lucky, and if you're not eating enough protein). Frankly, I'd spend at least a few months eating more, to maximize newbie gains, then work on losing the fat after that. Sometimes we want to drop weight NOW, but I think it's worth it to see the bigger picture-- what's 3-6 months? It'll be gone in a flash.
Final thought: don't know what you're doing with weight training, but a well-structured, consistent exercise plan will yield the best results. If you're just doing "whatever" in the gym, you might look for a good plan. Good luck!
Oh, and one more thing: if you're not weighing/measuring your food, you may be taking in significantly more calories than you think you are. A good primer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVjWPclrWVY
So if you continue to not see results (and I mean in a month or two), you may want to consider that as a possibility.
Oh, and one more thing: if you're not weighing/measuring your food, you may be taking in significantly more calories than you think you are. A good primer:
So if you continue to not see results (and I mean in a month or two), you may want to consider that as a possibility.
Thank you for your advice. I watched that video and I was surprised that a serving size is actually a little under the 1/2 cup measuring cup. I thought if you fill the measuring cup exactly to the top, that would be the proper serving. Why do the grams and measuring cup not correlate exactly?
Good luck!
