Ok... it's finally getting to me...

I weighed in this morning at 265.5, a gain of one pound from the previous low of 264.5

The first week, I lost 4.5 lbs. This week the scale has been bouncing up and down by a pound or two, but no net loss. As of this morning total weight loss for two weeks is 3 lbs. That seems like not much.

I'm tracking my calories carefully, and I'm coming in just under 1200 per day. I haven't gone off course even once. I have walked on the treadmill 3x this week and the other days I've done a lot more walking in general-- in fact two days, I was visiting a friend who lives in the city and I walked all over the place!

Why aren't I seeing more of a change?

So far, I'm holding tough-- but it seems really discouraging.

3 lbs for 2 weeks is GREAT! On a daily basis, the scale WILL bounce. If you can handle the fluctuations, that's great (some people think they are FUN! which I don't understand at all, heh). If the daily fluctuations bug you - try to weigh only one day a week, or pick one day a week to record your weight loss. Be sure you are graphing your weight loss - it's great to look at the big picture - weight loss over time. (just a note, I always weighed on Sundays, if I didn't like what the scale said on Sunday, I weighed on Mondays and recorded the best number )

1200 calories is pretty low for a beginning diet, it doesn't give you much wiggle room to make adjustments when you get smaller and need fewer calories to live. Your weight loss might slow down, and you have so much more flexibility to manage your calorie intake if you start higher. Just a suggestion, eating more calories definitely worked for me (I lost on 1400-1600, but everybody is different).

Just to repeat - 3 lbs in 2 weeks is GREAT. Any weight loss is great

Hang in there. I just went through a six week plateau and then the next week I lost 4 pounds and the following week 3 pounds. I also agree about weighing yourself too much - the scale will move constantly up and down based on if you have eaten - had a BM etc. I now do it once every two weeks and this seems to make me less stressed about it. Good luck !!!

We are about the same weight, and I can tell you 1200 calories is just too low. You should shoot for around 1500 to 1600 calories a day, especially if you are exercising. Your body probably feels like it is starving itself. I did 1200 calories for 3 weeks and lost less than I did at 1600 calories.

woah 1200??? maybe your body has hit starvation mode already? I think that's way too low ~ my doctor told me to start on the high end and work my way down so the old body doesn't flip out and hang on to everything with a death grip LOL

Hi everybody, and thanks for chiming in...

It's so weird, because in the past, I could have never stayed on 1200cals/day...

This time, I really don't feel excessively hungry most of the time... in fact, I've had days where I'm actually coming in under 1200...

I'm worried that my metabolism died or something.

I feel like if I tried 1400 or 1500 I wouldn't lose at all.

Why do people say they lose MORE if they eat more calories? What is the thinking behind that?

Because the body needs fuel to function. If you take away that fuel, the metabolism slows down so your body won't need to burn off your fat stores and muscle to sustain itself.

I agree that you need to eat more calories. Start as high as you can go, then as you lose weight, decrease the calories and increase the exercise. Also, are you lifting weights at all? Building muscle will help boost your metabolism, too.

Because if you eat more NOW while you weigh more, it's easier for your body to burn it off because your body naturally burns more calories than someone who weighs 150 pounds. If you start off at 1200 calories, that leaves you nowhere to go. I started off averaging 1800 calories in the beginning, and lost pretty steadily, now I am averaging closer to 1600. Please consider upping your calories, especially if you are excercising! Your body needs it.

Maybe u are gaining muscle.

Okay, here is my theory (not a doctor, registered dietician, scientist, just a 20 year dieter):

From an evolutionary aspect, we have survived because our bodies are amazingly adaptable and our bodies go to great lengths to keep us alive. Let's say you're in a plane crash in the mountains and have to hike your way over days of rugged terrain with little to no food (or maybe you're on a wagon train going west or living in medieval times and there's a bad drought and the crops fail or any other scenario)...what do you want your body to do to keep you alive?

You'd want it to slow down your metabolism, cannabalize muscle (because muscle metabolically takes more calorie reserves to maintain) and hold on to every bit of extra fat possible as an emergency store. How does your body know that you are deliberately choosing to drastically reduce your calories on purpose instead of really being faced by a dire situation? Your body has to treat it like a real emergency - it has to keep you alive! Your body does just what centuries of the human race struggling on a daily basis to get enough calories wants it to do - store fat in good times for times of famine.

If you were some prehistoric woman eating a few roots everyday, would you turn down mammoth when the hunters managed to snag one? Heck no, you would eat every bit down to the marrow, that fat store would help you when it's back to nothing but roots for weeks.

As I said earlier, I dieted for 20 years. I always had to be "perfect" eating less than 1200, exercising at least an hour. I could manage it for awhile, then, I normally binged. Then I felt like a horrible out of control loser, so I starved myself. Then I binged, then I restricted and ugh - it was a terrible terrible cycle and I never lost any weight for any length of time. I could lose weight, but I always always gained it back AND more.

So, in 2004, I decided to try again. This time I took a long hard look at every "diet" I had tried in the past and decided to make a new rule - no being hungry. I told myself very specifically that I wanted a "hot" metabolism when I reached my goal weight. I made my goal 1400-1600 and I lost 55 lbs very steadily. When I reached 140, something really weird happened. I stopped losing weight, plateaued for 3 months or so. I thought my body was done losing weight, so I increased my calories to right around maintenance (1800) and I LOST MORE WEIGHT eventually ending up at 127 lbs. My own theory is my body felt threatened by 1400 calories and decided to hold onto fat reserves "just in case." I started eating more and my body said "no famine, no fat reserves needed." Just my own personal pet theory with no scientific backing - just what I lived.

Anyway. 1200 calories doesn't seem to be working for you. It doesn't leave any room for modification when you might need to readjust calories in the future. But, you have to do your own thing, I've been there and didn't listen to this kind of advice. I wish I had listened to it 20 years ago - but everyone has to have their own journey.

Please don't be discouraged at your weight loss speed, settle in, it takes a long time.

It is doubtful she is gaining muscle eating so few calories and just walking for exercise. Muscle has to come from someplace, it has to be built.

But, Baileysmomma raises an excellent point! Be sure to measure yourself. Sometimes measurements can show surprising progress that the scale doesn't!

I agree with those who say you should consider eating more. It sounds completely counter-intuitive, but it makes sense if you think about it. Right now, you're hauling around 264 pounds, which takes a whole lot more energy than it will when you are at your 170 goal. Calories are just a unit of energy, afterall (not the :evil: little things many of us think they are).

I'm losing about 2 pounds/week on an average of 1655/day for the past month. In fact, if you do WW, they start you with more "points" in the beginning because you need more food to maintain your core bodily functions when you are larger. If you're eating at or below 1200/day now -- you'll have no where to go (further calorie restriction) when you DO lose the weight.

It's also VERY hard to meet all your nutritional needs (protein, carbs, fat, vitamins, minerals) below 1200. Have some more fruit, veggies, low-fat yogurts and see if that doesn't do the trick.

You can always try eating a little more, and if it doesn't work for you, do something else!

Two weeks is just too short a period to make any conclusions. There are a hundred reasons why weight loss can vary day to day or week to week, even if your diet and exercise remain constant. That's why it's really hard to say x event this week caused y amount of weight loss/gain, especially this early in your program.

I would agree that starting at the highest calorie level that allows you to lose 1 - 2 lbs a week, is the most sensible and sustainable way to lose weight. However, I think whatever program you're on, you can't draw conclusions from one or even two weeks, especially if you've got an active menstrual cycle (I gain up to 12 lbs of just water retention premenstrually - so what looks like a 8 lbs gain that week, could actually be hiding a 4 lb loss).

X

Wow, lots of responses to sort through!

As for why the scale doesn't move... weight loss just doesn't march downward in a line. It blips. Even if you tried to eat the same number of calories each week, sometimes it may go down, sometimes up, sometimes stay the same. Remember the scale doesn't just weigh the fat you want to lose-- it weighs ALL of you. And your weight fluctuates!

See this great post for some more information about fluctuations:
http://www.3fatchicks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=115826

Kaplods is also correct: you need to give a plan more time. Because of these fluctuations one week doesn't give a full picture of what's going on.

As for the calories, there are lots of statements made about "starvation mode" and whatnot. I'm not a biochemist, and I don't even play one on TV, and I really don't have the background to be able to evaluate any of those statements.

However, I do know that larger bodies need more calories for everything they do -- from brushing your teeth to driving your car to typing. So these larger bodies have greater caloric and nutritional needs than smaller bodies do. A smaller person may be able to receive enough nutritional benefit from 1200 calories, while you may not. That is one important reason why I believe larger people should start on higher calorie levels and then drop as they lose.

Also, as other people have pointed out, over time eating too few calories for your needs may cause you to really go off track, binge, and then conclude that you can't "diet". When in truth, the problem was that you weren't giving yourself enough to live on. Theories about starvation aside, you may want to consider upping your calories for some other reasons.

Now, I know you said you aren't hungry now, but consider that this is new to you and your motivation is high. So many people find it gets harder to continually say no no no to food, especially when "special occasions" come up.

Losing weight is hard, especially when you have a lot to lose. Why make it harder than it needs to be? My advice is to think about long term plans, strategies and solutions. Don't worry about the scale on any given week. (I know, I know... easier said than done!!)