I'm 17, 155-160 lbs on any given day, and do a variety of workouts throughout the week including horseback riding for 1-1.5 hrs, cardio circuits at the gym for 45 minutes, a 30 minute TV exercise show (Gilad's Total Body Sculpt..I do this once a day), or bike ride around my neighborhood or to the library on any given day. My calorie intake is between 1200-1500, but sometimes I have a problem with binge eating on things like Honey Bunches of Oats but I have curbed significantly to one bowl 2x a week.
I'm not losing any weight, just maintaining which is quite depressing after what feels like working so hard and accomplishing so little. I've been doing this for over a month now. My thighs still jiggle D:
What am I doing wrong?
Male/female? What's your height?
Female, 5'8
Thanks
Well at your height that weight isn't much on the heavy side, which might be why you are struggling so much to lose weight.
You caloric intake is definitely, way, way too low. I think you need to raise it quite a bit and keep on working out. Losing weight takes time. And the closer you are to your "skinny' weight the longer it takes to lose that weight.
Anyway you may just not be burning that many calories in your workouts. I'm not saying you aren't working out very hard but keep in mind depending on the intensity of the workouts you could be burning as little as 250 calories or so an hour.
Anyway I suggest you eat a good amount more (I'm not even sure you are eating above your BMR right now) and continue exercising and perhaps up the intensity. Give it time.
Original Post by katiecat153:
What are the benefits to increasing my calorie intake? By keeping a calorie deficit and by exercising, you will lose weight. So why would making my calorie deficit smaller help me?
Because your body thinks there's some sort of famine going on with they way you're eating, and it's protecting itself.
I've got 23 years on you and can't go under 1500/day (the rest of your stats nearly mirror mine). If I do, my losses stop. As a teen, and as active as you are, you are going to need WAY more calories than this older lady ;)
As a teen, your bare minimum should be 1500. As a taller, active girl... well, you get to eat more.
I ran your stats through a teen calculator (the CC calcs are for those over 21). I went with the option of moderately active, though you're probably closer to very active. To maintain your current weight at moderate you would need 2397 calories. To maintain at very active it's 2716.
Subtract 500 calories from those and you're looking at a calorie intake on lazy days of 1897 and on more active days of 2216.
Bump your eating up. I know it doesn't make much sense, but it works. It makes you feel better, fuller, and rather hedonistic at times (I mean, c'mon... I have to eat ALL THIS FOOD to lose weight?), but your body will realize that your throat really hasn't been cut and the pounds will start to fall off. Losing weight doesn't have to be a practice in deprivation, or some sort of torture. Armandounc has the right of it. Eat more.
You are doing too much activity, and no matter how you refeed, if you are not letting your body rest and recover, your bodies natural hormonal response will not allow you to lose weight. Eating more will not help, RESTING more will help. My guess is you have too much cortisol from too much cardio...
Do your horse back / bicycle riding to your hearts content, I'd assume that makes you happy and is a stress relief. Outside of that, limit your "exercise" to 3 days a week of either intense weight training, or moderate cardio. No more than an hour. On days you are not working out, keep your cal intake low. On days your do work out, make it a little higher so you have nutrients to repair and refeed the damage that exercise does to your body. You could also try some carb cycling, eating low carb on rest days and higher on workout days.
Track everything for a couple weeks and monitor the scale AND %bf (at the gym or with skinfold calipers or use a measuring tape on a few spots:arm waist leg). Adjust your calories as needed. Start off around 1500-1700 and adjust based on results.
Original Post by eringilbert:
Original Post by katiecat153:
What are the benefits to increasing my calorie intake? By keeping a calorie deficit and by exercising, you will lose weight. So why would making my calorie deficit smaller help me?Because your body thinks there's some sort of famine going on with they way you're eating, and it's protecting itself.
I'm sorry, but the starvation mode on "reduced cal" thing is a myth... it takes SERIOUS cal restriction& nbsp;to affect BMR, we are talking 500 cal per day. Studies have shown that around 1200 cal/day will not lower your BMR or REE. I can and will quote more if i see other studies proving different, but for starters see this:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/51/2/167.full.pdf
"Patients were randomlyassigned to a very-low-calorie diet (VLCD, 500 kcal/d) or a balanced-deficit diet (BDD, 1200 kcal/d). After 8 wk of supplemented fasting, REE of the VLCD patients decreased by 17%whereas that of the BDD patients was virtually unchanged.REE of the VLCD patients increased during 12 subsequentweeks of realimentation such that differences in REE betweenthe two groups were not statistically significant at week 24(VLCD = - 1 1%, BDD = -2%). Reductions in weight and fatfree mass (FFM) were 12. 1% and 3.6% for the VLCD patientsand 10.6% and 4. 1% for the BDD patients, respectively. Therewere no significant differences between the groups in pre- toposttreatment changes in REE normalized to FFM. "
Original Post by 31770:
Original Post by eringilbert:
Original Post by katiecat153:
What are the benefits to increasing my calorie intake? By keeping a calorie deficit and by exercising, you will lose weight. So why would making my calorie deficit smaller help me?Because your body thinks there's some sort of famine going on with they way you're eating, and it's protecting itself.
I'm sorry, but the starvation mode on "reduced cal" thing is a myth... it takes SERIOUS cal restriction& nbsp;to affect BMR, we are talking 500 cal per day. Studies have shown that around 1200 cal/day will not lower your BMR or REE. I can and will quote more if i see other studies proving different, but for starters see this:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/51/2/167.full.pdf
"Patients were randomlyassigned to a very-low-calorie diet (VLCD, 500 kcal/d) or a balanced-deficit diet (BDD, 1200 kcal/d). After 8 wk of supplemented fasting, REE of the VLCD patients decreased by 17%whereas that of the BDD patients was virtually unchanged.REE of the VLCD patients increased during 12 subsequentweeks of realimentation such that differences in REE betweenthe two groups were not statistically significant at week 24(VLCD = - 1 1%, BDD = -2%). Reductions in weight and fatfree mass (FFM) were 12. 1% and 3.6% for the VLCD patientsand 10.6% and 4. 1% for the BDD patients, respectively. Therewere no significant differences between the groups in pre- toposttreatment changes in REE normalized to FFM. "
It doesn't have to be 500 cal/day. Are you saying that at 501 cal/day the effect disappears? In this one study with limited subjects (anything less than 100 is pretty insignificant) they find that 500 cal/day cause over 15% decrease in REE in an 8 week period, compared to no significant decrease at 1,200 cal/day. That is not to say there is no decrease at 600 cal/day, or 700 cal/day, or 800 cal/day, etc., etc., etc.
Also, this study follows them for a mere eight weeks. Most people on calorie-restrictive diets follow them for months if not years. So this study is not to say that the effects don't show themselves at diets around 1,200 cal/day when the time frame is increased significantly.
Anyway this has been discussed before and I think more and more people are becoming aware that "starvation mode" doesn't really exist. But that is not to say there isn't a response in the body to restricting calories. And it doesn't have to be as extreme a restriction as this study suggests.
People always fall back into "you will go into starvation mode"...
where is the proof...
show me proof of affects and we can talk.
people are making off the cuff remarks with no basis other than broscience and heresay. If you have a better study with more people for a longer time that proves your point i would be very interested to read it! I like the science and the facts.
Trying to put words in my mouth doesn't make you correct or make you look smart or make you know what you are talking about.
I cited this study as reference to the OP statement that she intakes 1200 cal/day. She can take it or leave it.
I'm glad more and more people are becoming aware that "starvation mode" doesn't really exist- i think people can starve and do- and it does affect there metabolism, but they are not "dieters", they are malnutritioned people with serious heath affects.
The body does have a response to restricting calories, it losses mass. Cutting calories without proper sleep and nutrition will affect endocrinologic responses which may affect weight loss, but that is not the body going into starvation mode, that's metabolic derangement because you are not eating resting correctly. You can't fix that by eating more calories blindly.
Did you read what I just posted? I clearly stated "starvation mode doesn't really exist". I don't need to show you any proof of it because I AM AGREEING WITH YOU. There is nothing to talk about. I am stating the same, exact thing you stated.
Original Post by 31770:
People always fall back into "you will go into starvation mode"...
where is the proof...
show me proof of affects effects and we can talk.
people are making off the cuff remarks with no basis other than broscience and heresay. If you have a better study with more people for a longer time that proves your point i would be very interested to read it! I like the science and the facts.
Trying to put words in my mouth doesn't make you correct or make you look smart or make you know what you are talking about.
I cited this study as reference to the OP statement that she intakes 1200 cal/day. She can take it or leave it.
I'm glad more and more people are becoming aware that "starvation mode" doesn't really exist- i think people can starve and do- and it does affect there metabolism, but they are not "dieters", they are malnutritioned people with serious heath affects.
The body does have a response to restricting calories, it losses mass. Cutting calories without proper sleep and nutrition will affect endocrinologic responses which may affect weight loss, but that is not the body going into starvation mode, that's metabolic derangement because you are not eating resting correctly. You can't fix that by eating more calories blindly.
Now, hold up here just a daggonned minute. I never said word one about "starvation mode". Frankly I find "starvation mode" an annoying term and can picture nothing but really sad commercials featuring children in food depressed countries when I hear it.
However, for a simple plateau... yeah, increasing your calories if you're at too much of a deficit will work wonders. My proof of this effect? Me. I did it. It worked. No one likes plateaus... they're annoying. If it's something as simple as giving your body a little more fuel so it is happy to jettison some extra fat stores -- go for it. We're here (well, at least some of us are -- apparently some of us are here to stand on a soapbox) to lose weight. The best, healthiest, and most efficient way to lose that weight is all most people are interested in hearing.
The OP is a 17 year old girl that is significantly under eating for her weight, height, and activity level. She needs to increase her calories to become the woman she is growing into -- and to get off the stinking plateau she finds herself faced with. I hardly think a severely restricted diet is going to accomplish either goal for her quickly OR healthily.
Besides which... who wants to be on severely restricted calories forever? Learning what your body is capable of and what it's limits are seems to make much more LOGICAL and COMMON sense to me. And I didn't need some sideline internet chat board scientist to prove it.
For the study you quoted... who gives a rat's a**? The girl wants to lose weight, not concern herself with her BMR and the long term effects of a lower calorie diet. I'm all good with the science of it and your posting behind it, but this is the real world. Not a study. There's a real person on the other side of your post -- actually there's a lot of real people on the other side of your post - some of them lurk but never post. There are a lot of people on here with actual real life eating disorders. I hardly think yay-rah-zis-boom-bahing about uber-low calorie diets and how a life long decision (for them) made on an 8 week experiment is responsible of you.
The moment somebody says starvation mode there is somebody else coming with a study that says starvation mode is a myth. I've read a few links posted and some I googled. My understanding is that lowering calorie intake with exercise prevents metabolic rate from slowing down. But the problem is that weight loss is not only about your metabolic rate. Not eating at or above your BMR is firstly probably not healthy as when we talk of a calorie intake at BMR it also takes into account the nutrition your body needs. Second maintaining a low calorie intake may be fine but call it what you want this low intake causes your body to save as fat when ever it finds excess calories. Take the starting point that a calorie deficit causes fat loss. Then remember your body needs a certain nutrition level to maintain itself. I think BMR is a good proxy for minimum required if you eat healthy. Then ensure you burn enough calories in a day to have a deficit and you are good to go.
@katiecat 153 & ttgorgeous
Eat enough. Your body needs nutrition to work properly including the process of burning fat. Eat at minimum at your BMR. On days you exercise eat a little more as you need extra nutrtion other than just energy to remain healthy after exercise. My emphasis here is ensure your body is getting the nutrition level it needs for your age. Then ensure you are burning about 500 calories a day more than you consume. You WILL lose fat / weight. Do not target too high a deficit at your weight and age.
Obviously this evidence is anecdotal -BUT- I had exactly the same experience as erin. Restricted calories for a while, lost 40 lbs, stopped losing weight, ate more for a while, started losing weight again.
Granted, I had more weight to lose than the original poster so it was probably easier for me. But you *can* actually exercise too much and eat too little and stop your weight loss.
Maybe number 31770 is having a problem because it does seem like there are a lot of people on here being like "boo hoo, I can't lose weight even though I'm doing everything right" when they're actually eating a 1000 calorie box of cookies at night.
Try to make sure that your calorie counts and exercise counts are accurate before you go to eat more. And make sure you are eating quality calories. Then there should be no problems!
Original Post by eringilbert:
Original Post by 31770:
People always fall back into "you will go into starvation mode"...
where is the proof...
show me proof of affects effects and we can talk.
people are making off the cuff remarks with no basis other than broscience and heresay. If you have a better study with more people for a longer time that proves your point i would be very interested to read it! I like the science and the facts.
Trying to put words in my mouth doesn't make you correct or make you look smart or make you know what you are talking about.
I cited this study as reference to the OP statement that she intakes 1200 cal/day. She can take it or leave it.
I'm glad more and more people are becoming aware that "starvation mode" doesn't really exist- i think people can starve and do- and it does affect there metabolism, but they are not "dieters", they are malnutritioned people with serious heath affects.
The body does have a response to restricting calories, it losses mass. Cutting calories without proper sleep and nutrition will affect endocrinologic responses which may affect weight loss, but that is not the body going into starvation mode, that's metabolic derangement because you are not eating resting correctly. You can't fix that by eating more calories blindly.
Now, hold up here just a daggonned minute. I never said word one about "starvation mode". Frankly I find "starvation mode" an annoying term and can picture nothing but really sad commercials featuring children in food depressed countries when I hear it.
However, for a simple plateau... yeah, increasing your calories if you're at too much of a deficit will work wonders. My proof of this effect? Me. I did it. It worked. No one likes plateaus... they're annoying. If it's something as simple as giving your body a little more fuel so it is happy to jettison some extra fat stores -- go for it. We're here (well, at least some of us are -- apparently some of us are here to stand on a soapbox) to lose weight. The best, healthiest, and most efficient way to lose that weight is all most people are interested in hearing.
The OP is a 17 year old girl that is significantly under eating for her weight, height, and activity level. She needs to increase her calories to become the woman she is growing into -- and to get off the stinking plateau she finds herself faced with. I hardly think a severely restricted diet is going to accomplish either goal for her quickly OR healthily.
Besides which... who wants to be on severely restricted calories forever? Learning what your body is capable of and what it's limits are seems to make much more LOGICAL and COMMON sense to me. And I didn't need some sideline internet chat board scientist to prove it.
For the study you quoted... who gives a rat's a**? The girl wants to lose weight, not concern herself with her BMR and the long term effects of a lower calorie diet. I'm all good with the science of it and your posting behind it, but this is the real world. Not a study. There's a real person on the other side of your post -- actually there's a lot of real people on the other side of your post - some of them lurk but never post. There are a lot of people on here with actual real life eating disorders. I hardly think yay-rah-zis-boom-bahing about uber-low calorie diets and how a life long decision (for them) made on an 8 week experiment is responsible of you.
I'm not suggesting a uber low cal diet or staying on one for life. I suggested STARTING AT 1500-1700 and then ADJUSTING. The OP asked how increasing calories to lose weight makes sense- something that you said DIDN'T make much sense... You also said her body thinks there's some sort of famine going on and her body is protecting itself- that sounds like starvation mode scareism to me! I was pointing out that it takes ridiculously and dangerously low cals to cause the body to stop losing weight by "protecting itself" via dropping its REE/BMR (i'm not sure what other method the body is protecting itself you could be referring to). I disagree with you and think she is exhausting herself- eating more would help if she is training for athletic performance, but isn't as useful for weightloss.
I suggested setting calories based on HER body's response to her cals and activities, not some way older lady's personal experience with her own diet, or some internet calculator that she found that seems to make her an expert. 
So thanks for agreeing with at least THAT point i made...
,
Yes You are right. She should adjust diet.
