[tricon7]

I wanted to make sure I had my math right on this. So if I feel that I'm losing weight too slowly (no one else has that problem, right?), and if an extra 3500 calories equals one pound of fat, then I would have to lose an extra 500 calories per day for a week to lose that extra pound. Does that sound correct?

The only way I could do something like this, above and beyond what I'm already doing, is to maybe drop my current already-very-low calories per day by 100, then exercise off the remaining 400. This means extra time out of my cramped and frantic daily schedule, which I'm not sure I can manage. It's a wretched choice, but it may have to be a painful sacrifice. Long-term gain, short-term pain as they say.

[twinieten]

Yup, no pain, no gain.... or loss.

I'm having a terrible time losing. My days are so long which makes low cal difficult at best. Spreading out those calories is hard. And talk about losing slow! Frustrated doesn't begin to describe how I feel.

500 a day is supposed to lead to a pound a week. For me, I have to go above that. Just keep in mind, this is over the course of a week. You don't have to hit that daily, just as long as your average for the week is that. That means if you can get your calories down for a couple of days, even if you don't do it every day, you should be fine. Just don't go over. You don't have to kill yourself at the gym every day, but certainly try to get there 3-4 or more days a week.

But like you said.... hard.... not easy.... wretched.... long term..... it will be so worth it in the end!

[redmomof4]

I would say to keep in mind that -3500 calories = 1lb of loss, but that isn't necessarily fat loss. your body will burn through carb stores first and then fat and protein. If you are not getting enough protein you may not see much fat loss. Just something to think about.
Shawna

[LockItUp]

You also need to keep in mind that you can do all the math in the world and burn an extra xxx and eat xxx less, but that doesn't mean the scale will reflect that.

I've been in a deficit, working out, and the math says I should be down at least 2 lbs per week, but yet the scale says I'm up. Now I know that it's not possible I have actually gained FAT, but the scale says what it says. It'll show eventually.

I know you get frustrated it doesn't come off as fast as you like, but it WILL come off.

[tricon7]

Additionally, at 1600 calories a day and barely losing, I'm wanting to lose a little faster than that, i.e. maybe shoot for two pounds lost per week or week and half. Hence, it'll require burning an *additional* 500 calories a day (averaged out) above and beyond what I'm already doing. It's like a nightmare, isn't it?

[JohnP]

Originally Posted by redmomof4

I would say to keep in mind that -3500 calories = 1lb of loss, but that isn't necessarily fat loss. your body will burn through carb stores first and then fat and protein. If you are not getting enough protein you may not see much fat loss. Just something to think about.

A better way to state it would be to say if you do not get adequate protein you will lose muscle along with fat so make sure you have adequate protein in your diet.

[kaplods]

Originally Posted by tricon7

Additionally, at 1600 calories a day and barely losing, I'm wanting to lose a little faster than that, i.e. maybe shoot for two pounds lost per week or week and half. Hence, it'll require burning an *additional* 500 calories a day (averaged out) above and beyond what I'm already doing. It's like a nightmare, isn't it?

You have the math right, "in theory," but the problem is that
"in real life" you can't control how much your body burns, and eating less can trigger burning less.

Starvation mode is mostly myth, but there's a kernel of truth in there. Your metabolism can slow if you push the calorie deficit too far. You can eat 100 fewer calories, but how are you going to be sure that you're burning 400 more? And how are you going to stop your body from burning less (hint: you really can't).

I'm not saying that your plan won't work, just that it might not. You can't "force" the math to work out, because we really don't know a heck of a lot about how and why metabolism can slow down for some people, and yet doesn't seem to for others (or when we do know why, there's not a whole heck of a lot that can be done about it).

What I am saying is experiment with different calorie levels, different carb levels, and different amount of exercise, and just be happy with whatever weight loss results as you learn what your body works best on (and pay attention to how you feel, not just how much you lose. Losing faster isn't always better than losing slower).

I believe in the math of weight loss, but weight loss is more like algebra than "straight" addition, multiplication, subtraction, and division. The "calories expended" part of the equation is an unknown and is affected by all sorts of things, including activity level, exercise, sleep, environmental temperature, calories in, food choices, immune and healing needs... a whole bunch of stuff you have absolutely no control over whatsover.

For example, I lose about the same on 1500 calories of high carb foods, as I do on 1800 calories of moderately low-carb. I lose even better on 1800 or more of very low-carb, but faster loss comes with too high a price tag (feeling horrible). I choose the 1800 calories of moderately low-carb.

I can't tell for sure why my body burns better on lower-carb, but I do have a clue - my body temperature is almost a full degree higher on lower carb. On high-carb, my temperature is almost never over 98 degrees unless I'm very sick. It took years to convince doctors that for me 98 degrees was a fever, and 99 usually signalled pneumonia.

If you're going to experiment with carb levels, DON'T compare the first two weeks. You'll hold onto more water with high-carb, so if you compare the first two weeks of weight loss, you'll falsely conclude that low-carb is faster. Likewise, when you switch from low-carb to higher-carb, you'll see a gain (that isn't fat gain, it's just the extra water your body needs to process the extra carbs).

The water difference isn't that important so don't stress about it (following low-carb just because of the couple extra pounds of water you're not carrying around to digest the carbs, isn't the best strategy - especially if you're someone who feels better on higher carb. You need to want to have the energy to be able to exercise more than you want to be at the lowest weight just because you can manipulate it).

Because the "calories out" isn't under your direct control, and you never know what could help you maximize it, all you can do is experiment and compare the results.

It's possible that two pounds, or even one pound may not be feasible for you at your current weight.

That is hard to hear, because we've been taught to want and even demand rapid weight loss.

[seagirl]

When you say "barely losing" what do you mean?
I'm losing a pound a week and that feels like lightning speed!

[judipurple]

Thank you, Kaplods - your posting was clear and concise, and was what I needed to hear at this point in my weight loss path.

[ringmaster]

I agree it isn't always that simple, even though in the long run it is calories in and calories out. Awhile back I was being careful with counting my calories and using a chest strap heart rate monitor that estimates calories burned... I was trying to be sure I was losing 1-2 pounds a week but the scale didn't reflect that. The funny thing is, after I relaxed a bit with the exercise, calories and the scale the following month I dropped 10 pounds which could of been from all the exercise from before.

[Steph7409]

Or, you could go the other way entirely. I want to lose another 20 pound and I'll be happy if that happens by the end of the year. I don't want to starve myself, I want to enjoy my life now. I've been down this road before and I know there's no pot of gold at the end, there's just the rest of my life, so what's the rush?

[alitorry]

I basically do what Snaggly is saying. That has worked for my weight loss. I dropped cals to usually no more than 1300 and work out 6 days a week, 2.5 hours each time. it was kinda biggest loser style, but I was desperate and determined.. And it works

[Veela]

I really have a hard time getting behind that weight loss is as simple as calories in vs. calories out. It assumes that all calories are treated the same in the body. In a number of studies this has been proven to be untrue. If you were to eat 1600 calories a day and all those calories were from carbohydrates and still hit the calorie burn that you need to lose weight I am willing to bet you would actually gain weight.

If you don't fuel your body appropriately it won't respond properly. I don't count calories because I become obsessive about it and tend to end up doing unhealthy behaviours as a result. I have begun finally following my own advice regarding diet. Lots of protein in the morning, only eating high sugar/starch food first thing in the morning or after a work out. Eating lots of vegetables and legumes for bulk and including lots of great healing and super foods.

I really believe that you need to help set your body up for success and that there are things you can do which will help it achieve what you want it to. It's just a matter of doing research and figuring out what will work best for you.