Disappointed with lack of results

Aseth

Over the years I did put on some (many) extra kilograms. Recently after watching some shows on how bad the refined sugar is for you I made a decision to ditch sweets.
It wasn't unusual for me to have a snickers or two and ice-cream in the evening, some random sweets during the day(depending on what people had in the office) and often an afternoon chocolate bar. I realize it's s-load of added calories so after going cold turkey I expected to drop at least a stone withing few weeks. I tracked what I'm eating for a week or so using MFP and on average I eat 1300-1400 calories per day. I try to eat healthy - have fruit and nut for snacks, rice and fish for lunch and home cooked dinner. But there's no change in my wieght. And I'm wondering what am I doing wrong and why removing (estimated) 300-400 calories extra per day doesn't seem to produce any results.

Mellor

What do you weigh?

Are you weighting your food? As snacking on nuts is an easy way to consume extra cals.

Irishcrx

You could be under eating or not tracking correctly what are your exact stats , height , weight etc?

Carlos Orange

Weight fluctuates throughout the week so I wouldn't expect a clear picture of what is happening to be apparent for about a month at least. I typically have about a 2kg difference between my lowest and highest weight during each week. And remember you were putting on weight before you adjusted your diet so that is 400 calories less than weight gain not 400 calories less than level.

Aseth

Thanks for all the replies.
I'm 4'11 and about 11 stones I read somewhere that my metabolism might have slown down and that's why I'm not loosing anything. And yes - my weight fluctuates a bit which is so frustrating as I thought twice already things are going in the right direction only to weigh myself 2 days later and have my old weight back

Donal55

Aseth wrote: »

Over the years I did put on some (many) extra kilograms. Recently after watching some shows on how bad the refined sugar is for you I made a decision to ditch sweets.
It wasn't unusual for me to have a snickers or two and ice-cream in the evening, some random sweets during the day(depending on what people had in the office) and often an afternoon chocolate bar. I realize it's s-load of added calories so after going cold turkey I expected to drop at least a stone withing few weeks. I tracked what I'm eating for a week or so using MFP and on average I eat 1300-1400 calories per day. I try to eat healthy - have fruit and nut for snacks, rice and fish for lunch and home cooked dinner. But there's no change in my wieght. And I'm wondering what am I doing wrong and why removing (estimated) 300-400 calories extra per day doesn't seem to produce any results.

No talk of exercise in any of the above.

Mars Bar

Aseth wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies.
I'm 4'11 and about 11 stones I read somewhere that my metabolism might have slown down and that's why I'm not loosing anything. And yes - my weight fluctuates a bit which is so frustrating as I thought twice already things are going in the right direction only to weigh myself 2 days later and have my old weight back

Judging by your height I'd say you are female. (I'm the same height!) Hormones and water retention could easily be that weight. Stop worrying about the weight on the scale and see if you notice a change in your clothes over the next few weeks.

Aseth

Donal55 wrote: »

No talk of exercise in any of the above.

I used to exercise earlier this year for 4-5 months(up to about 2 months ago) but I wasn't getting any results. But back then I was still eating sweets. So maybe I could get better results this time. What discouraged me(and I know this is not only about weight loss but general health) is that in best case I was burning 200-250 calories per session. I was doing mostly strength with a bit of cardio for warm up but kind of decided that I'm not burning enough and I couldn't see myself spendng more time @ the gym.

Mellor

Aseth wrote: »

I used to exercise earlier this year for 4-5 months(up to about 2 months ago) but I wasn't getting any results. But back then I was still eating sweets. So maybe I could get better results this time. What discouraged me(and I know this is not only about weight loss but general health) is that in best case I was burning 200-250 calories per session. I was doing mostly strength with a bit of cardio for warm up but kind of decided that I'm not burning enough and I couldn't see myself spendng more time @ the gym.

Diet is a bigger factor than exercise.
If you were still eating rubbish, I'm not surprised you didn't get results.

The fitter, faster, stronger you get, the more calories you can burn.

johnnyskeleton

Aseth wrote: »

I used to exercise earlier this year for 4-5 months(up to about 2 months ago) but I wasn't getting any results. But back then I was still eating sweets. So maybe I could get better results this time. What discouraged me(and I know this is not only about weight loss but general health) is that in best case I was burning 200-250 calories per session. I was doing mostly strength with a bit of cardio for warm up but kind of decided that I'm not burning enough and I couldn't see myself spendng more time @ the gym.

An often overlooked benefit of going to the gym regularly is that the time you spend in the gym is time you don't spend eating sweets on the couch or in the pub.

After a long day in work yesterday, for example, I only got to the gym at 10.30pm and was pretty tired. I did a 5km run then went home. That's only about 350-400 cals burned (500 according to those machines but I'm not sure how accurate they are).

However, had I not gone, I might have had a few slices of toast or gone to the shop and got a sugary snack and sat on the couch. When I'm tired I can easily eat an extra 800-1000 calories in snacks. As in eat a whole bag of haribo and 6 slices of toast in an hour!

I did have snacks after the gym - some tuna fish and a small bit of cheese - and these seemed so much more rewarding after the run than the alternative.

So keep up the gym, if only for that psychological effect of "I went to the gym today and am trying to be healthy" over "Ah damn it, I just wanna eat everything"

scrumqueen

Aseth wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies.
I'm 4'11 and about 11 stones I read somewhere that my metabolism might have slown down and that's why I'm not loosing anything. And yes - my weight fluctuates a bit which is so frustrating as I thought twice already things are going in the right direction only to weigh myself 2 days later and have my old weight back

First of all, I would stop weighing yourself so regularly. It's very disheartening and also not a good indicator of body composition. Get out a tape measure and go with that. Limit yourself to weighing yourself every couple of weeks, and if you are struggling with that, once a week maximum, and if you have to, do it on the same day at the same time every week. Say Friday morning when you wake after you have gone to the toilet.

Weight loss is not linear, if it took a long time to build up the weight it will take a while to lose it. Consistency is your friend so preparing all your meals at home is certainly a good start and make sure to pack in a lot of green vegetables in to your lunch box and limit snacking on nuts.

slicus ricus

Aseth wrote: »

Over the years I did put on some (many) extra kilograms. Recently after watching some shows on how bad the refined sugar is for you I made a decision to ditch sweets.
It wasn't unusual for me to have a snickers or two and ice-cream in the evening, some random sweets during the day(depending on what people had in the office) and often an afternoon chocolate bar. I realize it's s-load of added calories so after going cold turkey I expected to drop at least a stone withing few weeks. I tracked what I'm eating for a week or so using MFP and on average I eat 1300-1400 calories per day. I try to eat healthy - have fruit and nut for snacks, rice and fish for lunch and home cooked dinner. But there's no change in my wieght. And I'm wondering what am I doing wrong and why removing (estimated) 300-400 calories extra per day doesn't seem to produce any results.

I can imagine this must be frustrating for you, making positive changes and not seeing results. The key to being able to lose body fat is A) Knowing what formula to follow and Having the will power to follow it consistently.

In terms of the formula to follow, there are 2 key things:
1) Accurately calculating the amount of calories you burn on a daily basis (Total daily energy expended - TDEE);
2) Coming up with a nutrition plan that will see you at a 400-500 daily calorie deficit below your TDEE.
The rest is down to will power. There is also an added complication of eating to maintenance once a week to kick start your metabolism but it is important to get the basics right before considering that.

On that basis, I have 2 questions:
1) Have you calculated your TDEE and if so, is the calculation accurate?
2) Is your average daily calorie intake 500 calories below this? By average daily intake, I mean an average of Monday to Sunday (including weekend meals out & drinks)?

I apologise if any of the above comes across as harsh or direct. Just trying to give you all of the information to help you achieve your goal.

Smoked Tuna

scrumqueen wrote: »

First of all, I would stop weighing yourself so regularly. It's very disheartening and also not a good indicator of body composition. Get out a tape measure and go with that. Limit yourself to weighing yourself every couple of weeks, and if you are struggling with that, once a week maximum, and if you have to, do it on the same day at the same time every week. Say Friday morning when you wake after you have gone to the toilet.

Weight loss is not linear, if it took a long time to build up the weight it will take a while to lose it. Consistency is your friend so preparing all your meals at home is certainly a good start and make sure to pack in a lot of green vegetables in to your lunch box and limit snacking on nuts.

Unless the OP is weightlifting and gaining muscle whilst losing fat as a newbie than scales weight should reflect this?

It can fluctuate wildly from day to day, but a daily weigh in with an average taken on a weekly basis would be the most accurate? WIFI scales that automatically log your weight would be conveniant.

If you only weigh in every few weeks, on that day it could be off by 1kg due to water issues etc or depending on what was eaten the previous day.

But obviously how your feeling in your clothes, how they fit, and how you look in the mirror are representative of your progress, but scales can give a very good indication too, depending on the individuals circumstances.

Annelie78923

Use the Mifflin-St.Jeor-Formula to work out your exact calorific needs (it's a newer formula which has been shown to be the most 'correct' one). Google for it, there's a few calculators for it out there.

Now, if you're 5"2 and do not exercise, and have maybe 20kg extra and are middle aged, then your requirements will be about 1400 calories. In which case, it's no surprise that you're not losing. The much quoted 'average 2000 cal' is a myth for most people and a main reason why so many people overeat.

Check your food and your body scale for accuracy.

Some here said 'deficit of 500 cal' --- please don't do that.

Shoot for about 20% deficit because whilst you need to lose weight, you also need to keep up your nutrition. Starvation is quite easy to achieve, and it's insidious, you will not notice it very much and it will be eating into your substance. Learn your protein requirements (about 1gm per kilo of your 'ideal' bodyweight) because if you do not give the body enough protein it will cannibalise your muscles for it. Likewise, you need enough potassium and magnesium (plus a few other things).

To put your expectation of weightloss into perspective: a stone is 6350 grams, a gram of human fat weighs about 7.7gms. So, to lose this much weight, you will need to stick to the 500 calorie deficit for 98 days.

Example: if your maintenance calories are 1500, then 20% of that will be 300 calories deficit, which translates to 39 gms loss per day, which is 1.169 kg per month. So, whatever you can lose in 1-2 month is easily masked by water retention.

Basically, that which took years to put on will not come off on the quick either. Depending on how much you need to lose, this could be a multi year project.

Your best bet is to relearn portioning food properly for your requirements, it will take a few month to do that, mentally and physically.

Play around with the formula a bit and see how much you need to eat to maintain 2 times your current overweight, then ask yourself: could I really eat *that* much every day? Chances are you can't imagine eating so much! Next, take a look what the formula allocates you at your ideal weight, and imagine yourself looking back and wondering how you could have ever eating such huge amounts every day back in your overweight days. (it's all relative)

And recalculate your needs every month, because getting older and losing weight means you will need less calories.

Weigh and record everything, your successes, your cheats, and your failures (those 10 beers you drank? The biccies you scarfed? Yep.) into a spreadsheet. It will teach you much about yourself, and as with everything, knowledge (and a little bit of arithmetic) is the power to succeed.

Btw, doing this is also a good exercise for people who (still) are of a healthy weight, we all should know much more than we do about food and our bodies.

Also: don't share portions out 'equally' just to be fair. This also elegantly avoids the 'must finish my plate' syndrome, which is a sure way of fattening the '1200 cal is plenty' crowd (that is, most ladies below 5"2).

Tiddlypeeps

Annelie78923 wrote: »

Use the Mifflin-St.Jeor-Formula to work out your exact calorific needs (it's a newer formula which has been shown to be the most 'correct' one). Google for it, there's a few calculators for it out there.

How can a formula that doesn't take body fat % into consideration be more accurate?

If you have two people of the same weight and same height, but one is lean and muscly but the other is pudgy then the lean person is surely going to have a higher BMR.

Edit: Just thought I should point out I do think working out BMR and TDEE is great advice and the OP should totally follow it. Whatever formula you use is going to be close enough to be useful so don't let my post put you off. It just caught my interested so had to ask.

Annelie78923

Tiddlepeeps wrote:

"How can a formula that doesn't take body fat % into consideration be more accurate?"

It does account for body fat by including a variable for weight:

Men
10 x weight (kg) + 6.25 x height (cm) - 5 x age (y) + 5

Women
10 x weight (kg) + 6.25 x height (cm) - 5 x age (y) - 161.

Now what I forgot to mention is that this give you your BMR and after that you multiply for 1.2 (sedentary, office job, the odd dog walking) or 1.4 for weightlifting peeps (thereabouts) to get your calorific needs. Then run your spreadsheet and tweak according to what you see after a few months. You might easily be the person who just needs the 1.1 multiplier.

However, as I said, find a calculator that uses this formula, and almost all of them will use the second formula to calculate your final calorie requirement. I'm not allowed to post links yet, hence the 'google for a calculator' hint

Btw, regards 'metabolism': if you eat that little that your metabolism goes into starvation mode, eat more please, it's a message to you that you're starving. Starvation for more than 3 days once in a while is not good for you at all, just stick to a 20% deficit and you'll be fine.

If you get metabolism problems with this regime, it's time to see the doctor to find out what is the medical problem that is causing it.

runawaybishop

Annelie78923 wrote: »

Btw, regards 'metabolism': if you eat that little that your metabolism goes into starvation mode, eat more please, it's a message to you that you're starving. Starvation for more than 3 days once in a while is not good for you at all, just stick to a 20% deficit and you'll be fine.

This is starvation mode. Op is no where near that.

OP, you replaced sweets with nuts? Nuts are calorie dense so replacing calories with more calories will not help you lose weight.

Annelie78923

Starvation is in effect if your body starts to cannibalise itself for nutrients -- bones, organs, skin and muscles will all be affected.

You can be very fat whilst this is going on!

The picture of severely malnourished, underweight children you are showing is the end stage of starvation, but most of the damage is done before you ever get there, and it's for the most part irreversible. So, don't bother with extreme regimes, and please take it seriously and looks after yourself. 20% is quite a big deficit and you will need all the micro nutrients you can get.

In essence, there is no get thin quick method.

Most obese people will need 3-4 years of deficit nutrition to regain a normal body weight and a complete attitude change of what constitutes a normal daily diet.

slicus ricus

runawaybishop wrote: »

Where to even begin!

That is malnutrition, not starvation mode!

I think "Survival Mode" is actually we should be using rather than "Starvation Mode". Basically if you are on a deficit for long enough, your body will go into Survival Mode and try to hold onto whatever fat reserves it has, hence the need to kick start the metabolism every so often by eating to maintenance. The effect of this is greater the lower your body fat percentage goes, which is the reason why lifters trying to cut to single figure body fat percentages will do this once a week.

runawaybishop

Nonsense.

slicus ricus

runawaybishop wrote: »

Nonsense.

Ha, think we posted at roughly the same time. Looks as if you are saying my post is nonsense - can't help but think that's not what you meant:D

runawaybishop

No, you are both incorrect.

article.

http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/

slicus ricus

runawaybishop wrote: »

No, you are both incorrect.

article.

http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/

I still maintain that what the Minnesota Starvation Experiment proves is the effects of malnutrition, the effect of which is not just loss of bodyfat but complete loss of muscle as well and serious health complications.

What I'm talking about is the rate of weight loss starting to plateau when on a reasonable deficit where the aim is to reduce body fat in a healthy way without losing muscle! Your article even states that this is true:

runawaybishop's link wrote:

The true part is that being in a deficit DOES in fact cause your metabolic rate to slow down over time. This is known as adaptive thermogenesis, and it happens as a result of any prolonged deficit. The more excessive (in terms of size and duration) the deficit is, the more significant this drop will be.

The false part however is the idea that this “metabolic slowdown” is significant enough to actually STOP weight loss. It’s not. And it sure as hell isn’t significant enough to cause weight gain.

Obviously if you are stupid enough to do a stupid level of deficit and practically starve yourself, your health will suffer and you will effectively waste away. Anyway, that's all I have to say about this - it has gotten way off topic.

Annelie78923

Slicus Ricus wrote:

"I think "Survival Mode" is actually we should be using rather than "Starvation Mode". Basically if you are on a deficit for long enough, your body will go into Survival Mode and try to hold onto whatever fat reserves it has, hence the need to kick start the metabolism every so often by eating to maintenance. The effect of this is greater the lower your body fat percentage goes, which is the reason why lifters trying to cut to single figure body fat percentages will do this once a week."

No, it's not that your body tries to preserve fat at all. It doesn't, how would it know how much fat it's got? There is no mechanism that does this.

However, the body needs protein, potassium, calcium and magnesium (and other things) to run basic services (heart, lungs, liver, kidney, brain).

If those are not available, it will cannibalise you, that is, it leeches your muscles, skin, bones and even organs for micro nutrients it needs. Trouble is, that putting those nutrients back into place is hard to impossible. And not having those nutrients means your basic services run poorly, resulting in less calories required and not much cell repair taking place --> there's your starvation mode and 'low metabolism'.

This is why you should not go below your BRM calorific requirement, and why you need highly nutritious food with enough micro nutrients when attempting a calorie deficit.

(Sorry for being tedious, but the metabolism thing is fairly much a mtyh. If you have this problem you either are undernourished, or need medical attention, it should never been a consequence of healthy dieting) [I clam up now :-D ]

Tiddlypeeps

Annelie78923 wrote: »

It does account for body fat by including a variable for weight

Weight does not take into account if that weight is made up of fat or muscle. That formula will give you the same BMR for two people the same weight and height, but one has 25% body fat and the other 40%. Whereas in reality their BMR will vary by at least a couple of hundred calories.

Annelie78923

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

Weight does not take into account if that weight is made up of fat or muscle. That formula will give you the same BMR for two people the same weight and height, but one has 25% body fat and the other 40%. Whereas in reality their BMR will vary by at least a couple of hundred calories.

Which is why you then choose a different multiplier depending on your activity level, once you calculated your BMR.

Same thing, just a slightly simpler way of calculating it.

Like any model, this is not perfect, but as stands, it currently is the best we have.

Moreover, someone who is an athlete and thus at the level where this becomes significant will very soon realise if it their intake is less or more than desired, either they get tired real quick, or, they go up in a weight class (eek!).

This is why you need to keep a spreadsheet and weigh yourself and your food every day.

We can make models that seemingly fit everyone, but in the end, you need to build your own personal model from the generic one. It mostly works, but it will never be as accurate as reality itself.

slicus ricus

Annelie78923 wrote: »

No, it's not that your body tries to preserve fat at all. It doesn't, how would it know how much fat it's got? There is no mechanism that does this.

I don't know, only recounting what I have read. I do know from experience that the once a week eating to maintainence while cutting works well.

Annelie78923 wrote: »

This is why you should not go below your BRM calorific requirement, and why you need highly nutritious food with enough micro nutrients when attempting a calorie deficit.

Why would you do anything other than consume highly nutritious food with enough micro nutrients when cutting? A deficit is just not sustainable otherwise. Multi-vit supplements are an absolute must while cutting also. That would be part of any advice I would ever give to anyone trying to lose body fat.

Mellor

Annelie78923 wrote: »

Use the Mifflin-St.Jeor-Formula to work out your exact calorific needs (it's a newer formula which has been shown to be the most 'correct' one). Google for it, there's a few calculators for it out there.

It's not a new formula. It's decades old. It's slightly more accurate that the HB formula. But it's still has the same issue of not reflecting BF%. There are more accurate formulas. But the overall difference is minor. The choice of formula ia not important.

The much quoted 'average 2000 cal' is a myth for most people and a main reason why so many people overeat.

I very much doubt any one is overweight because they thought the had to eat 2000.

Annelie78923 wrote: »

It does account for body fat by including a variable for weight:

Weight isn't body fat.

One person could be 80kg and 10% BF another could be 80kg and 25% BF. They'll have the same results in the calculator, but different BMRs in reality.

slicus ricus wrote: »

I still maintain that what the Minnesota Starvation Experiment proves is the effects of malnutrition, the effect of which is not just loss of bodyfat but complete loss of muscle as well and serious health complications.

I don't think runawaybishop is disputing that starvation will eventually result is catabolism. It's the issue that people throw out the starvation mode as an excuse why they aren't loosing weight.

Look at it this way, if you are eating so little that you are cannibalising muscle. Then you'll still be losing weight. (muscle mass). If somebody has trigger starvation mode, they'll be losing weight.

The Minnesota experiment did shoe a drop in metaboilic rate. But that was the result of 6 months of severe restriction. It's not something that happens for an overweight person after a few week on 500cal deficit. The bodyshape of people in the experiment is very different

Annelie78923 wrote: »

Slicus Ricus wrote:
No, it's not that your body tries to preserve fat at all. It doesn't, how would it know how much fat it's got? There is no mechanism that does this.

There is a limit on the amount of bodyfat we can metabolise in a day. It's directly proportional to the fat we carry. Therefore very lean people can burn a lot less fat then obese people.

If those are not available, it will cannibalise you, that is, it leeches your muscles, skin, bones and even organs for micro nutrients it needs. Trouble is, that putting those nutrients back into place is hard to impossible. And not having those nutrients means your basic services run poorly, resulting in less calories required and not much cell repair taking place --> there's your starvation mode and 'low metabolism'.

This is why you should not go below your BRM calorific requirement, and why you need highly nutritious food with enough micro nutrients when attempting a calorie deficit.

Yes we should aim to supple at least the min necessary micro and macro nutrients to function. But the next part is a logic leap. These nothing there that suggests that BMR is a point at which we shouldn't go below.
The whole point of weight loss is to eat less than you need. But the body still gets the energy it needs. (it has to, or is we'd drop dead).

A better max deficit would take into account bodyfat levels and max possible we can burn in a day.

Annelie78923 wrote: »

Which is why you then choose a different multiplier depending on your activity level, once you calculated your BMR.

Same thing, just a slightly simpler way of calculating it.

Like any model, this is not perfect, but as stands, it currently is the best we have.

A leaner person has a higher BMR before the activity multiplier is applied. Activity level has nothing to do with bodyfat level.

And its probably not the best we have as there are formulas that allow fir BF%.
but as I said above, its not important. There little point being precise about whether BMR is 1755 or 1769 (14 cals), when you then decide between a 1.2 or 1.4 multiplier (350cals)

pillid12

I advised to stay focus on your dedication. Diet and exercise are the two biggest factors in weight lose. If you're taking the right food and doing proper exercise it is bound to show results. First research on the food that you are taking, you may think that it is healthy but it might not.

Alf Veedersane

Any of the calculators of calorie needs are going to be an approximation.

If you're tracking your intake ACCURATELY and your weight is on an upward trend, then you're eating too much.

If your guessing elements of your intake or not tracking everything, then that's part of the problem.

You can eat 'healthily' and eat too much. Accurately measure what you eat and drink and tweak as needs be.

slicus ricus

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Any of the calculators of calorie needs are going to be an approximation.

If you're tracking your intake ACCURATELY and your weight is on an upward trend, then you're eating too much.

If your guessing elements of your intake or not tracking everything, then that's part of the problem.

You can eat 'healthily' and eat too much. Accurately measure what you eat and drink and tweak as needs be.

This is it in a nutshell. In order to be at deficit, you need to know exactly how many calories are in what you eat and roughly what you are burning off on a daily basis - obviously making sure that input is less than output by a healthy/sustainable deficit amount over a weekly average. The best tool for accurate tracking is a scales to weigh your food, then work out the calories and Macros for your quantities online.