I have been tracking and working with the CC+ site for several weeks now. I have adjusted my eating - much more veggies, less fat, definitely adjusted my snacks. But alas - I have lost NO weight!!
I'm 26 yrs old, 5'3" and 165lbs - so I've got some to loose! I am trying to have a deficet of 500-1000 calories a day while adjusting my workout and intake. By following other posts and information from the site I understand how the process works, but just don't understand why it's not happening to me.
Reason: Moved from H&S to Weight Loss
I had to go through a week of obsessively weighing and measuring everything before I started to lose. Example: I thought I was only having a cup of cereal at a time; turns out it was 1.5 - 2 cups!
If you're patient and stick with it, you will get healthier :)
When I started, I prepared my food ahead of time and put it into portioned containers. Also I ate a lot of prepared foods so I could get the calorie counts from the packages. After a while you get the hang of it and don't have to count every blessed thing, but when you're starting it can be very useful.
It's also possible that you're gaining muscle or going through a particular time in the month when you may retain water.
One thing you didn't mention is whether you have adjusted the amount of carbs you are taking in. While I don't advocate anything as radical as Atkins, it may be that you need to keep track of the amount of carbs you are consuming, but only worry about carbs that aren't from fiber. So when counting carbs, take the total number of grams of carbs and subtract the number of grams of fiber and count the difference. This will help you to cut out a lot of excess sugar from your diet and that might help get you started.
I have noticed that some people ignore counting carbs because they have heard bad things about Atkins and related diets, but I think that it can't hurt you to reduce the amount of sugars in your diet as long as you don't go overboard with it and my doctor told me the same thing.
The excess sugar is one of the reasons I recommend against the 100 Calorie snack packs that many people here like so much. They may be only 100 calories, but if a lot of those calories come from sugars, then in my opinion, they are just junk calories. I'd much rather enjoy that 100 calories from lean protein or vegetables instead, like a low carb/low calorie tortilla, a slice of lean turkey, some lettuce made into a wrap with a touch of low fat honey dijon. (50 calories from the tortilla, 30 from the turkey, 15 from the dressing and 5 from the lettuce).
Original Post by floggingsully:
How much are you actually eating? I'm guessing under 1550? Because that's your BMR, and you shouldn't be eating under that. It could be that you are miscounting your calories, but you could also be eating too little - make sure you are eating over 1550.
why would I need to be eating over 1550? The site suggested 1350 for my calorie intake daily...
the carb intake is also a great suggestion -- I will take a look at that. (currently, however, I have a B+ overall rating for 4 weeks of time. I think that's pretty good, yes?)
I guess that biggest concern is that it hasn't just been one week - or "that time of the month" - I have maintained the same weight since I began 4 weeks ago and it is difficult to keep my watch up when nothing is changing... I will invest in a tape measure today tho and keep track of that too.
Thanks for the advice!!
Hi, Raechel! You and I sound like we're about the same body type.. I am 25, 5'2" and weigh 164 pounds. Three weeks ago, I weighed 171, and then started working with a personal trainer. He has me on a high protein, low-carb diet. By low carb, it's basically low low lowwwww sugar. Of course you still need some so you don't shoot your body into a diabetic coma or something, but pretty much just don't go out eating the most sugar-filled foods you can find.
I eat a lot of veggies and a lot of lean meat (chicken and tuna mainly). If I eat carbs, I eat them in the early part of the day when my metabolism is highest.. and even then it's like a piece of whole grain toast and a small orange. You can do a piece of fruit or something right after you workout, too.
Also, make sure you're drinking enough water to get rid of any water retention you may have. I try to drink a gallon a day. Tea counts towards that, too (and green tea, by the way, speeds up your metabolism!). I try to get at least 100 grams of protein a day.. if you can't get all that in food, try a low sugar (less than 1 gram) protein powder mixed with water (Wal-Mart has a decent one). Stay away from milk for now - it has lots of sugar.
If you're working out, you probably are gaining muscle. I know I ate really well and worked out a lot this week but still gained one pound, but I'm noticing a lot more muscle in my arms and legs. Muscle weighs more than fat, so that's okay! Go by how your clothes fit and the measurements of your body, not the pound number.
I know it's frustrating - trust me, I feel it too! But hey, we can do it together, right?!?!
Best Wishes,
Lisa
Original Post by happyteacher:
Your BMR is the calories your body needs to function, and if you eat below that, your body will think it's starving and will hoard everything. If 1550 is your BMR try to stay at or above that.
I don't believe that for one minute. The BMR calculator I use says that my BMR is 2514 calories. That is the number of calories needed to maintain my body at it's current weight. The thing is that I don't want to maintain my current weight, I want to lose, just like the majority of people here (I know that some people are here to help with eating disorders and are trying to gain to reach a healthy weight). So I must go below my BMR in order to create the caloric deficit needed to lose weight. And the calculator here says that to reach my goal weight, that I should consume 2750 calories per day. On that many calories per day, I wouldn't lose anything.
If eating below your BMR caused you to not lose weight because your body is hoarding everything, then explain how I have lost 86 pounds since June eating on average 1600 calories per day. Obviously there is a hole in your theory.
The BMR is a baseline. If you want to maintain your current weight, then you shouldn't eat more than that baseline. If you want to lose, you create a deficit so that you body has to dip into fat reserves to make up the difference between what you consume and what your body needs to keep going. The deficit can be created in one of three ways. Either you reduce the amount of calories you consume by restricting portions or you exercise or you combine the two. Although most people here are of the impression that you HAVE to do both, studies have shown that what matters is the amount of the deficit, not how it was created. In other words, just restricting your calorie intake will work.
Before everyone jumps all over me, I am NOT advocating using diet alone to create the caloric deficit, I am just stating the facts. Personally, I believe that diet plus exercise is the right method to use because although you can lose weight by diet alone (I lost the first 70 pounds this way), it is not sustainable in the long run and there are so many benefits besides burning calories to a good exercise program that it just makes sense to do both and the only reason I didn't exercise at the beginning of my diet was a herniated disk that had to heal before I could start an exercise program.
And before someone pops up and suggests that I have been sacrificing muscle mass, I say hogwash. I check my body composition regularly with my doctor and my lean muscle mass has stayed constant while my percentage of body fat has fallen sharply.
Techdog - first of all, congrats on your weight loss.
Second of all - the rule about BMR... although there is no consensus about this, it seems like for those people who are very overweight (and if you lost 86 pounds, I assume you were), they definitely can eat below BMR for their current weight, and continue to lose.
I would be lying if I said I understood why, but for those people who are in the slightly overweight-normal range, but still need to lose, eating below BMR causes the weight loss to stop, and people stall/plateau.
You say that BMR is the baseline, and you have to eat below that to lose. That is untrue - BMR is the amount you burn doing nothing (sleeping) all day long. If you get up at all, move, and then add exercise, you are going to be burning a bunch more than your BMR on a daily basis, and so if you eat your BMR, you will continue to lose, because you will create a deficit.
The 1200 number that people love to throw around as "the minimum a woman can eat" is based on the BMR of a 19-yr old, 100 pound, 5'2" (or something) girl. For those of us who are not her, we need more.
It is silly to think that the rules of weight loss for a woman weighing 160 pounds are going to be the same as a man weighing 300 pounds. Yes, the fundamental 3500 calories = 1 pound, OUT - IN = deficit, will remain the same, but the limits are different. For larger people, they can handle a 1000 calorie deficit; smaller people can't - some can't even do a 500 calorie deficit.
One more thing - the BMR is not what you need to maintain - you'd have to include your activity level (even if that is just sedentary - which multiplies your BMR by 1.2) to get what you need to maintain.
Hope this helped. If you want more info, look up an explanation of the Harris-Benedict equation.
The calculator here for BMR factors in activity level, so I still maintain that it is a baseline for maintaining your current weight, but that is largely a semantic argument. And yes, I do realize that as you get closer to your healthy weight range, it becomes harder to lose the weight. The fact still remains that you must burn more than you consume in order to lose weight. The problem I have with the calculator here is that the numbers it spits out don't make any sense. At least not for me. There is no way I could have lost the weight I have using the numbers here as a guideline.
And thanks. I've worked very hard to lose the weight I have.
There is no calculator on CC+ for BMR. What we have on CC+ is not BMR. The only calculator is for calories burned.
BMR is basic metabolic rate and it refers to the amount burned without any activity (including sitting up in bed). Not semantics - just the definition.
If you confuse BMR and sedentary, you are going to make other people confused.
Again, BMR is not how much you burn, but how much you would burn if you didn't move. I would never suggest that you can lose weight by eating more than you burn. That would be ridiculous. I simply suggest you allow yourself the basic calories you need for breathing, heart function, brain function, etc.
Finish your days as low carb so you body uses up what you have stored. Go for a normal carb for breakfast and lunch so that you dont have carb reaction rebound.
I agree go with the 1500. You need 2000 just to stay where you are at. 500 Is a normal cut.
Original Post by amethystgirl:There is no calculator on CC+ for BMR. What we have on CC+ is not BMR. The only calculator is for calories burned.
BMR is basic metabolic rate and it refers to the amount burned without any activity (including sitting up in bed). Not semantics - just the definition.
If you confuse BMR and sedentary, you are going to make other people confused.
Again, BMR is not how much you burn, but how much you would burn if you didn't move. I would never suggest that you can lose weight by eating more than you burn. That would be ridiculous. I simply suggest you allow yourself the basic calories you need for breathing, heart function, brain function, etc.
OK. I concede that I was wrong and saying BMR when I actually meant a different number that takes the BMR and activity level (AMR) into account.
What I should have said is the BMR + AMR as the baseline. But I still maintain that the statement made earlier in this thread about not being to lose weight if you eat below your BMR is bogus, because there are other factors that must be taken into account.
The problem with saying BMR is that the definition varies depending on which website you visit and many so called BMR calculators on the Internet ask you for activity level, which isn't a factor in BMR. There isn't just one method of calculating BMR or BMR + AMR, but several, depending on whose theory you adhere to (I know you are talking about Harris Benedict, but there are others that take into account not only weight, but lean body mass). That is why I said it was a matter of semantics. Sorry for confusing the issue.
And when I was talking about the BMR calculator here, I was referring to About.com. I know that CC+ doesn't have a BMR calculator, but About.com, the parent site has at least two of them and at least one of them takes activity level into account, which technically makes it a daily caloric need calculator instead of a BMR calculator. If this site was really concerned about avoiding confusion, it would tell you on the page where it displays the numbers, how it comes up with the number that they spit out, because THAT is what is confusing.
The calculator here is, in my opinion, worthless because instead of asking you to estimate the amount of time you spend per day in various activity levels, it just classifies you as sedentary, lightly active, etc, and I think that many people just guess and they guess wrong. So you fall prey to the GIGO rule of programming (garbage in - garbage out). For example, I work at a desk job, where I sit for a significant portion of the day, but I also go to the gym every day and do at least 45 minutes of cardio every day and lift weights every other day. So does that make me sedentary, lightly active, or moderately active? The definition here doesn't make that clear. If you ask me, I am sedentary, because I am sitting at a computer at least 6 hours per day. plus my commute time (another 2 hours), plus sitting at home, helping my daughter with her homework (another hour or so). A calculator that I think is much better is the one here:
http://preventdisease.com/healthtools/article s/bmr.html
What I am saying really is that blind faith in the calculators here or anywhere else for that matter is bad. The Harris Benedict method of calculating daily caloric requirements is skewed for people who are very athletic or very overweight, which a lot of people here seem to be (including me). The site should more clearly outline the limitations of their calculator to avoid confusion. It is not surprising to me that many people have trouble losing weight following the guidelines here.
What works for me is to take the BMR + AMR based on my target weight (not my current weight) as a baseline. From there I created a calorie deficit in the 500 - 1000 calorie range. Then before I started my diet, I consulted with my doctor, who approved my plan. This results in a daily calorie target that is much less than the calculator here. It hasn't been easy, but by getting my body accustomed to my daily caloric requirement of me at my target weight, I am preparing myself for maintaining that level in the long run once I reach my goal. Plus, I don't have to constantly readjust to fewer and fewer calories as my weight comes off. I DON'T RECOMMEND THIS FOR ANYONE BUT ME, but my doctor is closely monitoring my progress and by using my target weight instead of my current weight, there is a cushion in my daily calories so that if I underestimate my consumption for a day or exceed my goal by a couple of hundred calories, I am still okay. And I have adjusted these last 6 months to the reduced calories to such an extent that on the few occasions where I have eaten too much (like at Christmas), I felt horrible and going back on my diet felt good and not like I am depriving myself.
I will endeavor to be clear in the future and welcome the exchange of information. BTW, I still think that it would be a good idea for the person who started this thread to take into account the amount of carbs from sugar in her diet, since I think that many people ignore that and as a result are meeting calorie goals, but are still consuming way too much sugar, which could be a factor in their lack of progress.
Is my sodium intake too low?
You have nothing to worry about because sodium deficiency is extremely rare. In fact, there is not even an recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA... Read more
