Feeling discouraged and want to cheat (Ideal Protein)
Hello all,
Today I had my third weigh-in on Ideal Protein. The previous two weeks combined I'd lost a total of 7.2 pounds (5.2 of which were fat) and 1.75 inches, which was encouraging. This week, I lost 2.25 inches but only .2 pounds, which is extremely discouraging.
From around April until beginning the program in early September, I lost around thirty pounds on my own. I was hoping to have a little bit quicker weight loss, and my sister works for a weight loss center that does IP, so I thought I'd give it a try. I haven't cheated at all because I am extremely stubborn, so I find a .2 pound loss really discouraging. I have a lot of weight to lose (at least seventy pounds), so I guess I'm just really not sure why this week was so low (which was actually eight days since my previous appointment).
My moisture level increased this week (not to as high as it was when I started the program), so that could explain the low loss. My coach also thinks I may be consuming too much salt (I'm not measuring it but sprinkling it at all meals; I previously was consuming too little so I really tried to up it), or that my vegetables need to be more varied (I eat spinach every day, and sometimes broccoli or cauliflower). I also went back on birth control this past week, so is it possible this could have made a difference?
I'm just terribly frustrated. I'm not upset with myself because I know I didn't do anything wrong, I'm just upset with the situation, and kind of wondering why I'm paying nearly $100 most weeks for results like this. I know it's only one week, but I plan to spend time with a friend this weekend out of town, and I know it will be really tempting to enjoy myself and eat cheese and potatoes and other foods I really miss. I know if I go out of ketosis, it would be a step backward, but at the same time I want to enjoy myself as much as I can, and I almost want to just go back to losing weight by eating in a less-restricted matter (read: not Ideal Protein), just sensibly.
Any advice would help. Thanks a bunch, everyone.
Last edited by hearthebells; 10-02-2014 at 08:12 PM.
I'm not an Ideal Protein-er, but try to keep in mind that muscle weighs more than fat. If you lost more inches this week, but the scale didn't go down as much, it could mean that you're gaining muscle. Birth control can hinder weight loss as well... and sodium will indeed increase your water retention.
My best bet would be the .2 loss is a combination of those factors. You should feel very proud about the inches lost though! To me that's says more than a number on the scale. Major congrats!
Unfortunately weight loss doesn't work out to be a steady loss from week to week. You may lose 2p one week and then nothing the next, that doesn't mean you're doing something wrong. It will take time, patience, and persistence.
I don't know how IP works but in the end it's all about calories in vs. calories out regardless of what program one chooses.
Also, muscle does not weigh more than fat. Muscle is more dense and takes up less space than fat, but a pound is a pound. Common misconception.
It's only been 3 weeks. Do you do any exercise along with IP? That will help IMO. Hang in there.
There is an IP specific section where I think you we're get better and more specific support.
Weight loss is not linear. Fat loss is but you can't measure it short term.
No matter what your coach is telling you there is no way, at all, to know how much of your loss is water vs how much is fat.
Stick with the program and the scale will reward you.
Stick on this board sand soon you will know more than your coach. Here is the thing ... Sodium does not slow down fat loss. You may be retaining water but you don't want to limit your salt intake on the IP diet.
Also, muscle does not weigh more than fat. Muscle is more dense and takes up less space than fat, but a pound is a pound. Common misconception.
A pound is a pound, of course. However, since muscle is more dense, and since it takes up less space, 2 inches of muscle in a set location on the body is going to weigh more than 2 inches of fat in that location. Basically, if you have say, a liter of fat and you compare that with a liter of muscle, the muscle will weigh more because you're fitting more of it into that volume, and because it's more dense.
Since she lost inches, but not weight, she could be replacing her fat with muscle. It's the same reason BMI is off for people who build muscle. Perhaps I didn't word it well enough in my original response, but it could be a likely reason why she lost inches, but not necessarily pounds. There are quite a few articles that go over it, and discuss why going by the weight on the scale isn't really a good stand-alone indicator of health (especially true when you start getting close to your healthy BMI range). Here's a few of the articles: http://exercise.about.com/od/weightl...singinches.htm http://www.livestrong.com/article/30...-and-exercise/
A pound is a pound, of course. However, since muscle is more dense, and since it takes up less space, 2 inches of muscle in a set location on the body is going to weigh more than 2 inches of fat in that location. Basically, if you have say, a liter of fat and you compare that with a liter of muscle, the muscle will weigh more because you're fitting more of it into that volume, and because it's more dense.
Since she lost inches, but not weight, she could be replacing her fat with muscle. It's the same reason BMI is off for people who build muscle. Perhaps I didn't word it well enough in my original response, but it could be a likely reason why she lost inches, but not necessarily pounds. There are quite a few articles that go over it, and discuss why going by the weight on the scale isn't really a good stand-alone indicator of health (especially true when you start getting close to your healthy BMI range). Here's a few of the articles: http://exercise.about.com/od/weightl...singinches.htm http://www.livestrong.com/article/30...-and-exercise/
Thank-you for a concise, and accurate clarification!
Thank-you for a concise, and accurate clarification!
No problem I only even brought it up because it's the first week it's happened, and if starting at a lower weight (she didn't mention it) it's not uncommon to see the scale stay the same a bit when beginning exercise. Also, she lost more inches that week than the first two weeks combined by an entire half inch.
If you aren't losing inches though, and if weight is staying the same for weeks and weeks, then the likelihood of fat being replaced with muscle is pretty slim. Muscle builds less quickly than fat is lost, so for the weight to stay the same for a prolonged period of time... it's highly, highly unlikely for muscle being built to be the factor.
A pound is a pound, of course. However, since muscle is more dense, and since it takes up less space, 2 inches of muscle in a set location on the body is going to weigh more than 2 inches of fat in that location. Basically, if you have say, a liter of fat and you compare that with a liter of muscle, the muscle will weigh more because you're fitting more of it into that volume, and because it's more dense.
Since she lost inches, but not weight, she could be replacing her fat with muscle. It's the same reason BMI is off for people who build muscle. Perhaps I didn't word it well enough in my original response, but it could be a likely reason why she lost inches, but not necessarily pounds. There are quite a few articles that go over it, and discuss why going by the weight on the scale isn't really a good stand-alone indicator of health (especially true when you start getting close to your healthy BMI range). Here's a few of the articles: http://exercise.about.com/od/weightl...singinches.htm http://www.livestrong.com/article/30...-and-exercise/
A pound, is a pound! Does not matter if it is fat or muscle or feathers or dog hair. A pound is a pound. 16 ounces! They may take up a different amount of space, based on density, but a pound is a pound!
Fat does not turn into muscle, on the flip side, muscle can not turn into fat, they are 2 totally different things!
Patience, continue to make good changes, and it will work!
A pound, is a pound! Does not matter if it is fat or muscle or feathers or dog hair. A pound is a pound. 16 ounces! They may take up a different amount of space, based on density, but a pound is a pound!
Fat does not turn into muscle, on the flip side, muscle can not turn into fat, they are 2 totally different things!
Patience, continue to make good changes, and it will work!
A pound is indeed a pound.. which is precisely the reason why she could have lost inches but the scale didn't move much. I do not think that fat turns into muscle, or muscle into fat. It is entirely possible though, that over three weeks she was building muscle, and she had an off-week because the muscle she built, combined with other factors (water retention/birth control pill), happened to weigh around the same amount as the fat lost for this week alone. So while her weight would stay the same, because a pound is a pound, her inches would shrink (as they did by a whole half inch more than the previous two weeks combined) because muscle takes up less space.
If I am going to weigh something.. say weigh myself versus dog hair. I'm not going to get 238 lbs of dog hair and then claim I weigh the same as dog hair (which is what a comparing a pound of fat versus a pound of muscle is doing). I would find my volume, get an equal volume of dog hair, and then weigh each. In the example, saying I weigh as much as 238lbs of dog hair would be true, but saying I weigh as much as dog hair would be false. You'd need lots of dog hair to equal my weight, in the same way that you'd need more fat (here I am talking volume-wise, not weight-wise) to equal the weight of lean muscle. If you have one cubic inch of muscle, and one cubic inch of fat, the muscle will absolutely weigh more.
Again, if it happens week after week, then that isn't what's happening, and I don't think it's the only thing that happened with her this week, just something that could be contributing given the number of inches lost. Fat comes off quicker than muscle builds, so taking on a pound of muscle is going to take more time than taking off a pound of fat. The exception being if you're a fairly low weight and you're not gaining inches but are gaining weight, but you likely don't have a lot of fat to be losing, it's not that muscle gain is going quick. In that case you'd not be losing fat, but would be gaining muscle so weight would go up. In all scenarios though, it completely and utterly depends on inches lost. If your scale isn't budging -and- you aren't losing inches, then you aren't losing fat.
Losing 2.25 inches in a week is absolutely amazing. Regardless of what the scale says, your diet is going amazingly hearthebells. Keep it up. I apologize for hyjacking your thread.
A pound, is a pound! Does not matter if it is fat or muscle or feathers or dog hair. A pound is a pound. 16 ounces! They may take up a different amount of space, based on density, but a pound is a pound!
Fat does not turn into muscle, on the flip side, muscle can not turn into fat, they are 2 totally different things!
Patience, continue to make good changes, and it will work!
You can lose fat, while simultaneously building muscle. It's not "turning into" fat, just "replacing" if you would.
Yes, a lb is a lb, but "space" (volume) is different. Why is it when you take two people who weigh the exact same, one muscular, and the other fat, they will take up different space? Because the muscle is more dense than the fat is. In addition, the one with muscle will look trimmer and more than likely, be healthier.
I'd also like to point out, you don't build a lb of muscle in a week, this takes months. More than likely it's "water retention." What this means is simple. When we "build" muscle, we work it, tear it, abuse it, force it to strain itself. This local muscle damage causes a release of inflammatory molecules and immune system cells that activate satellite cells to jump into action and repair damages. There is a whole process of repairing the damage done by the workouts and it can make weight stick around while damages are being repaired. This is why when we build muscle, we don't see drops we think "water retention." And then maybe we get a "whoosh" while the muscle heals and starts to burn more fuel.
Meanwhile, the muscle needs energy to burn. It takes from the stores if you are eating less, it grabs the fat. The fat is stored energy, waiting to be used for this. The more the muscles are used, the more energy they need. The more muscle you have, the more energy it needs. This is also partly why body builders eat a ridiculous amount, they don't have the fat stores to feed their muscle, so they need additional energy from food.
Building muscle can increase metabolism. It essentially needs more energy.
And also, when the muscle gets worked, they develop more mitochondria, the little powerhouses that convert chemical energy into energy the cells can use.
There is a lot of science in this, but I promise, you didn't build lbs of muscle in a short period. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but IP you generally don't work out during the first phase? I can't imagine you could, as there can't be enough carbs to get the energy to do heavy lifting, so the chance of building muscle in such a short time is also very limited.
Either way OP, you're losing. I totally understand wanting to drop 50lbs the first week. Wouldn't that be awesome? The truth is it takes time. IP is known for big drops at the start, but over the course of a year or so, the weight dropped is the same as a steady calorie counter. It will start to taper off after a while, then you'll phase off. You should certainly head over to the IP forums as they know far more about this diet then me.
Also, birth control can certainly effect weight. I gained when I started mine. Hormones are fun that way, so it's certainly possible that's part of the issue. Still, you lost a lot of weight so far, and a lot of inches. I think that's great. You can't rush this, and I'm a bit of a hypocrite here because I've certainly been on these forums complaining about being stuck on a number for longer than I like! I think the trick, is stick to your plan, don't give in, don't give up. And in a year, you'll be amazed at where you'll be. Any weight lost is a good thing, even if takes a long time, at least it's going away.
Last edited by kurisitaru; 10-03-2014 at 02:07 AM.
I almost want to just go back to losing weight by eating in a less-restricted matter (read: not Ideal Protein), just sensibly.
Why don't you do that, then? You were obviously able to lose weight the old-fashioned way, so if you find IP a struggle and you have no health issues precluding a more varied diet, there's no reason to stick with it.
That said, everyone is correct in saying that weight loss is not linear. You'd experience the same fits and starts on any plan.
This is also partly why body builders eat a ridiculous amount, they don't have the fat stores to feed their muscle, so they need additional energy from food.
Building muscle can increase metabolism. It essentially needs more energy.
I'm not trying to take away from what was a brilliant post but these two things above are not correct.
Bodybuilders don't eat a "rediculous amount" unless they are just coming off the stage and going into a post contest binge. Bodybuilders are following very specific dietary plans whether they're bulking, cutting or maintaining. Their diet is a function of the body composition goals they are pursuing at the moment and has nothing to do with their fat stores or lack thereof.
Building muscle only barely increases one's metabolism. A lb of fat burns roughly 2 calories every 24 hours and a lbs of muscle burns six. So if you replaced 5 lbs of fat with 5 lbs of muscle you would have increased your metabolism by 20 calories every 24 hours. That a lb of muscle increases your metabolism by 50 calories is a popular myth.
I'm not trying to take away from what was a brilliant post but these two things above are not correct.
Bodybuilders don't eat a "rediculous amount" unless they are just coming off the stage and going into a post contest binge. Bodybuilders are following very specific dietary plans whether they're bulking, cutting or maintaining. Their diet is a function of the body composition goals they are pursuing at the moment and has nothing to do with their fat stores or lack thereof.
Building muscle only barely increases one's metabolism. A lb of fat burns roughly 2 calories every 24 hours and a lbs of muscle burns six. So if you replaced 5 lbs of fat with 5 lbs of muscle you would have increased your metabolism by 20 calories every 24 hours. That a lb of muscle increases your metabolism by 50 calories is a popular myth.
I may have misspoke or came off as if building 1lb of muscle would suddenly add an extra meal per day, the wording was incorrect I suppose. I meant that part of the reason builders eat a large amount is building muscles, by building they kill a ton of energy add that to what is all ready being burned by muscle and you're talking serious burns through energy. They also have a LOT of muscle so while they're working it, they're burning a lot of energy, this is partly why they eat so much. I didn't really mean that because they have a lot of muscle they need to be constantly eating a ton, just that while they are constantly working and building their muscles they need to be eating a ton. While most of us have fat stores to kill, we don't necessarily eat more because we want out body to pull from the fat stores, a body builder wants to create muscle, so they eat even more to have enough energy to build their muscle.
Muscle does increase metabolism, that wasn't an incorrect statement. I never heard 50 calories per lb before.... I'll be honest in admitting I wasn't sure exactly how much it burned, only that it did burn more calories than fat, and I did know that I don't ever plan on bulking up so sticking to my normal calorie counting with little change in the amounts was my plan. I didn't put in much thought to research body building and the calories burned by fat, I only knew that it burned more fat by research elsewhere and when I wanted to learn more about things that did effect me directly. Thank you for telling me how much more muscle burns in comparison to fat.
But I stand by body builders eating a ridiculous amount.
I get that it's not cakes and sugar and it's good proteins and it's a set diet, but it's still a lot of food, far more than anyone on these forums trying to lose weight would be eating. Most of them have set diets and are probably more restrictive that we are. ^^ Certainly more control than I could ever have, just like any athlete.
One body building contestant claims to eat around 4,000- 6,000 calories! http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/drobson199.htm
Unless he's lying or exaggerating, which could be the case... but considering this is consistent with what I've been hearing, I'd think it's around that. And for me, a 5' gal that works in an office and only gets 1700 to maintain (1200 to lose) These is a ridiculous amount. Arnold ate like a whole chicken and a gallon of milk for dinner, or so I've read in various sites.
While looking into it, I did read some conspiracies that they are lying to viewers for the following reasons:
1) To help promote a sponsor.
2) To convince the audience they don't take steroids
3) Exaggeration claims, either from not counting (doubtful considering these men are pros), or just to sound great.
However, whenever I hear something that can only be explained by speculation and conspiracy with no real backing, I tend to not trust it. I doubt the body builders are all lying about the amount they are eating.
I'm certainly not an expert on body building, but I've heard what they claim to eat and doing the math, well.. it's a lot of calories. To gain a pound of muscle each week (starter builders probably only gain 2lbs a month so we'll divide later), you need to consume 2,270 to 3,630 extra calories each week, or about 500 additional calories each day for 1lb a week or 250 calories extra a day just to build the .5lb gain per week. That's just the build, this doesn't include the amount they eat to maintain weight as well as amount to eat during their work out days.
I think you can burn 8-10 calories a minute while "pumping iron" as they say. This is the average body builder, this is generalizing, heart rate and weights would change this, but the average body builder burns more due to the weights and their general muscle mass. So this is about, 600 calories an hour of steady going, I've honestly no idea how long a body builder works for, and fast internet skimming hasn't revealed anything other than reps. But, it's possible they burn... 1200 a day? 2 hours? 1800? 3 hours? All that just working out, just to break even they would need to eat the 1200+2000 for an average person and you're looking at 3,200 calories. To build muscle you need to add 250 more to that, so at a minimum 3,450 calories, far more if they are working longer than this and most I'm sure eat more than 2,000 daily. Like I said, I have no idea how long these men and women chill at the gym for, so I could see it climbing to the 6,000 area easily. That's a ridiculous amount in comparison to everyone on these forums.
But still, 1lb = 6 calories a day * 50lbs of muscle (average muscle build of a life time builder (not someone who just started) = 300 calories a day, or one of my meals being burned just by being a body builder with that much muscle, and not working out that day. 6*20lbs (lighter weight builders) = 180 calories. We're looking at builders burning 180-300 calories more than the average Joe just because of their muscle mass. Yes, that's tiny compared to the over all pictures, but they still burn more than average people do just because of their muscle.
I meant more, in my original comment now that I've gone off a tad, that the act of building muscle burns a lot of calories because it's a strenuous work out and while it is happening you're creating mitochondria that are just munching on your energy. A person with a lot of fat can benefit from such a work out greatly because when the food you've eaten and used to create energy for that day is gone, you start killing your fat stores. This is essentially just the basic calorie in calorie out. Even if you don't exercise we burn energy just by resting, as long as you aren't taking in more calories then burning, you will see weight loss. Obviously if you can increase that deficit you will see greater losses. Running in addition, building muscle, anything to go from a 500 cal deficit to more can increase weight loss. Granted, healthy is generally 1lb a week, but it varies.
Granted, most of us aren't at this level, builders are certainly their own category and trying to match that, well... we'd better not unless we're planning on becoming builders. If we really wanted an extra 300 calories a day, we'd be better off going for a long run or working out on our own, not relying on muscle mass to burn for us, also remembering that muscles are "use it or lose it" types as well.
Last edited by kurisitaru; 10-03-2014 at 09:16 PM.
Feeling discouraged and want to cheat (Ideal Protein)
