I've been back on my diet for about two months now, and although I initially lost a few pounds, I haven't lost a pound in several weeks - even though I'm at 1600 calories a day, which is as low as I can go without just starving all day long. I've been exercising almost daily, usually either biking really hard for 30-45 min. or going to the gym for an hour and a half 2-3 times a week. I'm not losing weight in spite of doing all this.
I'm astonished that eating this little and exercising this much isn't dropping *any* weight off me. I'd hate to think if I wasn't dieting or exercising at all how fat I'd have become. Anyway, in order to shake something up, I'm upping my exercise regime to either a 1.5 hour bike ride or workout every day. I work and have small children, but I have to do this in order to see some results or I may get discouraged with all this work and just stop dieting altogether. My wife will just have to understand that in the short term she's not going to see me as much after work for a while - but I have to do what I have to do.
I would suggest changing up your routine. Add in some weight training instead of just doing cardio. Also, instead of just cutting calories maybe change the type of foods you're eating. Add more proteins and veggies and reduced simple carbs and sugars. I've found that when I eat more nutrient rich foods I don't need as many calories to stay full.
^^^^^
You should really eat more. It may sound counter productive, but as said by FatToFitWife, your body could have hit starvation mode, where it hoards ALL the calories you eat because it feels as if you're in a famine.
(Also weight training helps a lot.)
Last edited by Please Do Not; 03-08-2012 at 09:37 AM.
You may be too low in calories overall? If it turns out to be the suggested and is spot on, rethink the tactics.
You can swap up the exericse type -- your body gets used to it and grows efficient. And that's nice in terms of fitness gained. In terms of calories burned -- it means you burn less cause you got good at it! Going longer to burn more is one approach to deal with it. But there's only 24 hrs in a day and we don't want to miss on family time and all that. So another approach is deal with it is to change the sport/activity so you are moving your muscles in a new way. 30 min bike? Change it to 30 min swim then. Or 30 min lifting. Shake it up.
In the food area -- it's like only having 24 hrs in a day for the exercise. You can't keep cutting down to NOTHING even if cutting back initially gets a weight loss moving along. Are you getting bored? Eat MORE. THEN come back to the old level so it's a cut and is "new" to you again. Bumping up temporarily so you can do a cut again is easier -- and can be done as many times as you need. Others zig-zag the calories around daily. Others consider the types of food, new recipes, etc. In the end it's about you not getting bored with it.
Techniques vary but the basic idea is the same -- keep shaking it up so it doesn't get stale for you to stick with it.
Maybe the scale is no longer the most useful tool. What about tape measure?
Weight loss / tighter fitter physique is not a GOAL. It is a RESULT.
Your goal setting things are in the realm of sticking to the plan. "Did I do all my exercise? Did I do my food log stuff?" Give yourself a pat for executing the steps to set the stage for improved body.
Let the body heal and show results when it is ready to show result. It is healing from overweight. It is not an ATM. It can and will take time. Weight loss is not linear. Like cha-ching! -1 lbs each week Sunday at 10 AM!
I agree with the weight lifting. Especially being a man you need to build up on your muscle so you have the lean tissue that revs up your metabolism. I don't know how much you lift now, but it sound's like you are more focused on calories.
Also, if you aren't seeing any movement you may want to see if you have a thyroid issue. For two months no movement that is fishy. Although maybe you aren't eating enough either. For women, eating 1200 a day minimum with exercise is borderline not enough. IF you are burning a lot of calories you may be starving yourself.
If you want to avoid the doctor still try eating up to 2000 with your exercise yet, and see if the scale starts to move. You are a man, and you are lucky because you CAN eat more than us chicks!
Are you SURE you're only eating 1600 calories a day? Are you counting every bite? Every sip of coffee/tea/soda, etc? I ask because for the longest time, I was eating what I thought to be "about 1500 calories per day" and swimming 1 hour a day & losing nothing. When I started scrutinizing my caloric intake, I discovered I was eating 1800-2300 per day! Good googly moogly, no wonder I wasn't losing! When I started counting every single bite & sip THEN I started losing.
Also, I don't believe in "starvation mode" - it makes no scientific sense. The human body can go aprx 4-6 weeks without food - however, other variables can shorten or lengthen this time. Variables such as being obese or not drinking adequate amounts of water can change this amount of time. An obese person who is in good health can last anywhere from three to 25 weeks without food. However, if there is a shortage of both food and water, the person will not survive more than 10 days. If you don't eat enough food, the body will take its energy from your fat stores... and when that's depleted, from your muscle stores. And when THAT's depleted, you die. A person doesn't weigh 200 lb, and starve to death at 200 lb. Their body would weigh much less than 200 lb if they starved to death. See what I mean?
I also don't believe that zig-zagging calories "fools your body" into losing weight. Weight loss is a simple mathematical equation of a calorie deficit. Burn more than you take in = weight loss. (Unless you have a specific physical health reason such as a thyroid problem.) In the end, it's not a daily calorie intake (1500 for three days, then up to 1800 one day & down to 1200 one day, etc.) but the OVERALL calories for a week. BUT I DO BELIEVE that zig-zagging calories can help a person stay on plan because some days we are just more hungry than other days. THAT makes sense.
Last edited by Beach Patrol; 03-08-2012 at 10:19 AM.
The debate of the starvation issue is looked at differently by most folks. By no means would you starve "to death". But, what I gathered from the articles I've read it works like this.....
This type of starvation mode is where your body is not getting enough calories per day to lose weight. You are not really "starving" like on survivor...but you are not eating enough to sustain you..so you're body hordes the calories you DO eat and you stay at a plateau.
IF you were starving for real, eventually the calories would come off, but you are still eating so you just stay there as your body tries to store the food you do eat.
So it's not to say you starve in real life, as much as it causes a plateau by not eating enough. It may sound weird..but for some people it works to increase their calories if they don't see the scale budge. Try it, you can always go back to what you were doing if you don't see a change.
Last edited by JudgeDread; 03-08-2012 at 10:40 AM.
Are you SURE you're only eating 1600 calories a day? Are you counting every bite? Every sip of coffee/tea/soda, etc? I ask because for the longest time, I was eating what I thought to be "about 1500 calories per day" and swimming 1 hour a day & losing nothing. When I started scrutinizing my caloric intake, I discovered I was eating 1800-2300 per day! Good googly moogly, no wonder I wasn't losing! When I started counting every single bite & sip THEN I started losing.
Also, I don't believe in "starvation mode" - it makes no scientific sense. The human body can go aprx 4-6 weeks without food - however, other variables can shorten or lengthen this time. Variables such as being obese or not drinking adequate amounts of water can change this amount of time. An obese person who is in good health can last anywhere from three to 25 weeks without food. However, if there is a shortage of both food and water, the person will not survive more than 10 days. If you don't eat enough food, the body will take its energy from your fat stores... and when that's depleted, from your muscle stores. And when THAT's depleted, you die. A person doesn't weigh 200 lb, and starve to death at 200 lb. Their body would weigh much less than 200 lb if they starved to death. See what I mean?
I also don't believe that zig-zagging calories "fools your body" into losing weight. Weight loss is a simple mathematical equation of a calorie deficit. Burn more than you take in = weight loss. (Unless you have a specific physical health reason such as a thyroid problem.) In the end, it's not a daily calorie intake (1500 for three days, then up to 1800 one day & down to 1200 one day, etc.) but the OVERALL calories for a week. BUT I DO BELIEVE that zig-zagging calories can help a person stay on plan because some days we are just more hungry than other days. THAT makes sense.
I do both cardio and weights at the gym, so I think I'm good there. I'd be curious as to how calories were sneaking in to your diet. I count everything I eat, so I think I have that nailed. The sliced turkey at the Walmart deli was an unknow, then I got them to actually readl the label info on it.
I concur with you about the tired "starvation mode" argument, which is passed around from time to time. So, I lose fat by....eating more! Wow - what a great diet. If one brings in more calories than one puts out, there won't be weight loss. If one burns more calories than one brings in, there will be weight loss. This is a crystal-clear biological fact. If there's weight gain outside this, it's water-weight.
I agree with weighing food. Also, if you eat out a lot, restaurant meals may be way over menu calories listed, either due to portion size or whoever happens to be cooking.
I think the freedieting calculator WAY overestimates calories for maintenance. I've researched the underlying formulas for calories-burned-per-day, and even corresponded with researchers. There's a better one at calculator.net
Just to update my last post, I went back to the freediet calculator and got a totally different number. I can't get my "old" number even if I change to male, etc., so maybe I entered something really wrong the first time. It looks more reasonable now. Apologies.
<<Also, I don't believe in "starvation mode" - it makes no scientific sense. >>
ITA (and agree with your explanation). If you eat very little (say, 800 calories per day), you may lose weight at a slower rate than expected because your metabolism does slow down a little, but you won't stop losing weight altogether.
I agree with the suggestion to check your calories more carefully. When I was in weight loss mode last year, I thought I was eating 1,200 calories per day, but in hindsight I realize I was eating 1,500. (There were several things I didn't "count.")
The debate of the starvation issue is looked at differently by most folks.
There is no actual debate. There is only truth and then there is myth.
The truth is that the body has energy needs and those energy needs are going to be reduced when your body slows down it's metabolism but it cannot slow it down by much. In most cases it is 10-15% of one's BMR at MOST.
You might also feel lethargic thus reducing NEAT.
The problem is water renention. As you "starve" yourself your cortisol levels go up and this is typically compounded by stressing out about feeling hungry and more water is retained. Fat loss has continueds but weight loss has stalled. (Read that again) You then eat more calories and your body relaxes a bit and you drop weight and the myth that your body was in starvation mode continues as you share your experience across the WWW.
Resorting to desperate measures
If one brings in more calories than one puts out, there won't be weight loss. If one burns more calories than one brings in, there will be weight loss. This is a crystal-clear biological fact. If there's weight gain outside this, it's water-weight.
