Why did I not lose weight

Mellor

Minime2.5 wrote: »

most people dont even know what the word starvation means. Starvation isnt being hungry or eating very little food. Starvation is muscle wasting or when the body starts to eat itself .

That’s catabolism not starvation.
Starvation is a lack of food regardless of being catabolic or not.

500 calories a day is completely unnecessary restriction. And would be too few calories for most people

SusieBlue wrote: »

Because if she was eating say, 1500 cals a day up till last week dropping to 1300 isn't a huge deficit.

Whether she had been eating 1500 or 2000 the defect is the same now. Previous intake is not a factor.

GreeBo

Mellor wrote: »

Whether she had been eating 1500 or 2000 the defect is the same now. Previous intake is not a factor.

Sure the deficit is the same now, but it would explain (to the OP) why they aren't missing weight at 1300.
It seems they have no idea how many calories they were on before deciding that 1300 was a deficit.
At 5'2 and 14 stone your have to assume it was more than 1300 but...

Mellor

GreeBo wrote: »

Sure the deficit is the same now, but it would explain (to the OP) why they aren't missing weight at 1300.
It seems they have no idea how many calories they were on before deciding that 1300 was a deficit.
At 5'2 and 14 stone your have to assume it was more than 1300 but...

It's been a week, and they've lost 1lb. So TDEE is prob around 1800. Which is about right based on stats.

I'd guess they were eating more than 1800 previously, but it doesn't matter if it was 1600 or 3200.

GreeBo

Mellor wrote: »

It's been a week, and they've lost 1lb. So TDEE is prob around 1800. Which is about right based on stats.

I'd guess they were eating more than 1800 previously, but it doesn't matter if it was 1600 or 3200.

It matters in so far as if 1400 is their tdee but they had no idea they were eating 1400.

The op is presuming 1300 is s big drop in calories consumed so they are expecting a big drop in weight.

All I'm trying to point out is that it might not be a big drop at all.
Perhaps they used to eat 2000 calories a day 5 years ago and piled on the weight but for whatever reason they have been matching their tdee for the last year.
They now counting their calories and think 1300 is a huge drop but it might be only marginally fewer calories than what they were previously on, which is already closed to their tdee.

Im not trying to say that previous intake impacts tdee, I'm trying to explain to the op why 1300 isn't showing drastic results, it might not be a drastic change in intake.
If they knew their previous intake they might understand it better.

Mellor

GreeBo wrote: »

It matters in so far as if 1400 is their tdee but they had no idea they were eating 1400.

If 1400 is their TDEE then it's only a tiny 100 cal deficit. But that's the case whether they were eating 1400 or 2400. So previous intake isn't relevant there.

They now counting their calories and think 1300 is a huge drop but it might be only marginally fewer calories than what they were previously on, which is already closed to their tdee.

We don't know that they were eating close to their TDEE, but even if we did, I don't see how that info affects anything.
And somebody eating way over their TDEE would probably expect a bigger weight loss and not get it.

Im not trying to say that previous intake impacts tdee, I'm trying to explain to the op why 1300 isn't showing drastic results, it might not be a drastic change in intake.
If they knew their previous intake they might understand it better.

I don't you aren't saying intake affects TDEE, you get how it works. The other poster might have been suggesting that, I'm not sure. But regardless, I simply don't see how the information is useful at this point.

Let's say they were eating 1800 cals? What does that mean?
Or say it was 2400 cals. What exactly does that change or explain?

I think OPs expectations were just unrealistic. 1lb per weeks is normal.

bucketybuck

Its inane to keep insisting that the actual previous intake isn't relevant here. Of course it is.

jim o doom

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

'Standard dieting' and fasting are both ways of reducing calories. That's why both can result in weight loss.

The issues people have, when they ultimately put back on the weight they lost, is that their means of caloric reduction is not sustainable for them.

Some people fond counting calories helpful, others don't.

Some people find fasting/IF/time-restricted eating to be the best way, others don't.

Same for keto, low carb, paleo, etc

If you lost weight and put it back on, it's cos you couldnt sustain the changes that you made to lose the weight in the first place. Not becaise it wasn't fasting. Fasting is a sustainable way of managing your caloric intake for you.

I am afraid this is not the case - a large scale study of keto / low carb versus low fat diets showed significantly better results and healthy markers initially, but the vast majority of all of the keto dieters regained the weight, because it is VERY difficult to sustain a keto diet. I certainly know I couldn't stick to it, nor could the majority of people I know.

Traditional caloric reduction diets - the problem = your body actually does adapt to a constantly low caloric state, and as such reduces your metablolic rate, which means you need fewer calories, so you diet harder and harder, but your weight loss plateus - and eventually some even comes back.

Benefits of fasting - it doesn't cause metabolic damage, this is supported by many large scale studies - so by specifically fasting during a week, you reduce your weeks calories without affecting your metabolism.

In addition to that - when you fast, your body produces glucagon, more or less the opposite to insulin, a chemical which takes energy from your fat stores.

In addition to this, some weight is due to insulin resistance. The fact that we eat from morning to night means our bodies are constantly producing insulin, and the body adapts to this, and requires more and more insulin to function.

Fasting reduces insulin resistance, and increases insulin sensitivity.

People have been fasting for religious purposes for thousands of years with no ill effects, so we know fasting is safe from that large chunk of the population. Christians used to fast more, it's a big part of ramadan etc.

Fasting is not just about calories, it's about insulin, and how your body reacts to be consistently in a "fed" state. It is 18 hours since your last meal that your body is consider to be in a "fasting" state and is producing glucagon.

I understand the concept that some diets suit some people, and I know fasting isn't for everyone, but I think a lot more people should be willing to at least give it a try for a few weeks, and see IF it does suit them.

Many people will literally shoot it down in 1 second, "oh I could never do that". Yes you could. anyone can stop eating for a while, and many have no option but to fast as they have surgery coming up.

If a person cannot shift weight through other diet methods, then try fasting for a while. Include more veg in your diet. Reduce sugar, reduce wheat, and try to some resistance exercise.

GreeBo

Mellor wrote: »

Let's say they were eating 1800 cals? What does that mean?
Or say it was 2400 cals. What exactly does that change or explain?

It explains to the OP why 1300 is "only" losing them 1lb a week. Thats it, nothing else.

They seem to think 1300 is a huge difference, but without knowing what they started on we cant say. Either way it wont change how much they are losing, we all get this point.

If the OP was eating over their TDEE in the past then they were gaining weight, now that they are on 1300 they have both stopped gaining weight and lost 1lb a week.

Really only trying to help the OP understand whats happening tbh.

I think OPs expectations were just unrealistic. 1lb per weeks is normal.

and healthy.

extra gravy

I find myfitnesspal very good, have lost 10 lbs since Christmas using it.

Cill94

jim o doom wrote: »

Traditional caloric reduction diets - the problem = your body actually does adapt to a constantly low caloric state, and as such reduces your metablolic rate, which means you need fewer calories, so you diet harder and harder, but your weight loss plateus - and eventually some even comes back.

Benefits of fasting - it doesn't cause metabolic damage, this is supported by many large scale studies - so by specifically fasting during a week, you reduce your weeks calories without affecting your metabolism.

Fasting reduces insulin resistance, and increases insulin sensitivity.

Fasting is not just about calories, it's about insulin, and how your body reacts to be consistently in a "fed" state. It is 18 hours since your last meal that your body is consider to be in a "fasting" state and is producing glucagon.

All diets are caloric reduction diets.

Fasting works the same way as any other diet. It just reduces your calories by giving you less time in a day to eat them.

Insulin sensitivity can also be improved on a normal diet by just eating less sugary crap and exercising regularly.

Metabolic issues from dieting is aren't a concern if things are done sensibly i.e. a small deficit.

Alf Veedersane

jim o doom wrote: »

I am afraid this is not the case - a large scale study of keto / low carb versus low fat diets showed significantly better results and healthy markers initially, but the vast majority of all of the keto dieters regained the weight, because it is VERY difficult to sustain a keto diet. I certainly know I couldn't stick to it, nor could the majority of people I know.

That doesn't really prove anything other than it's not sustainable for you or the people you know.

jim o doom wrote: »

Traditional caloric reduction diets - the problem = your body actually does adapt to a constantly low caloric state, and as such reduces your metablolic rate, which means you need fewer calories, so you diet harder and harder, but your weight loss plateus - and eventually some even comes back.

Anything that causes you to lose weight is because you've reduced your caloric intake. Fasting included.

Zzzz11whsqo

Are you taking waist, thigh, arm, chest etc. measurements? You have to adjust your expectations and realise that it won't happen over the course of a week. Be patient with it, do something that'll be sustainable in the long term!

Stone Deaf 4evr

extra gravy wrote: »

I find myfitnesspal very good, have lost 10 lbs since Christmas using it.

100% - this app and a proper food scale wont be long helping to educate you on how much calories are in a particular product. - particularly for stuff like breakfast cereals, where 25g hardly covers the arse of the bowl.

Also - when cooking, its important to count the oils used in cooking, as these are tremendously calorie dense.

Mellor

bucketybuck wrote: »

Its inane to keep insisting that the actual previous intake isn't relevant here. Of course it is.

It’s relevant to why they gained weight.
I’d live to hear your reason fir why it affects weight loss from this point.

GreeBo wrote: »

It explains to the OP why 1300 is "only" losing them 1lb a week. Thats it, nothing else.

But as I keep saying, that’s their tdee not their intake. focusing on previous intake sends the wrong message imo

If somebody eating a 1000 surplus, reduced by 1000 cal. They might mistakenly expect weight loss. TDEE is better to focus on

Really only trying to help the OP understand whats happening tbh.

I know. Same here.

brick tamland

A lot of mad opinions here.

Only one week down OP. Keep at it. Ensure you hitting your calories correctly and keep at the walking. Weight will come off if you keep doing the right things. Dont get youlself down

No need to lower calories, change eating habits or weight lifting just yet.

GreeBo

Mellor wrote: »

But as I keep saying, that’s their tdee not their intake. focusing on previous intake sends the wrong message imo

But their TDEE and intake are the two parameters into the function of any weight loss/gain.


Previous intake coupled with previous TDEE gave a surplus or deficit and corresponding gain or loss.
Current intake with current TDEE is resulting in a loss of 1lb per week.

For me at least, to explain this to the OP we need to know whats changed in both TDEE and intake.

If we can show that neither have really changed, or have both changed but the difference between them hasnt really changed, then I believe we can better explain to the OP why they are "only" losing 1lbs a week.

Oranage2

I agree your previous calorie intake is important. Test have been done or biggest losers and it shows the had lower metabolisms then people in their range.

So if you always ate 1800 and drop down to 1500 calories you won't see much weightloss as 1 pound of fat is 3500 calories so it so it would take 11-12 days before you lost a pound.

GreeBo

Oranage2 wrote: »

I agree your previous calorie intake is important. Test have been done or biggest losers and it shows the had lower metabolisms then people in their range.

So if you always ate 1800 and drop down to 1500 calories you won't see much weightloss as 1 pound of fat is 3500 calories so it so it would take 11-12 days before you lost a pound.

Its only important in understanding what changes are/are not happening.

Your weight loss is always tied to intake vs TDEE.
Your previous intake has no bearing on this.

Macy0161

I wouldn't really agree that previous intake is important. TDEE is the important figure. If the deficit was correct to give weight loss, than that's to do with the TDEE figure/ actual, not the previous eating.

I can only speak for my own experience, but using TDEE and tracking, I lost expected weight. I recalculated TDEE each week to ensure the deficit. fwiw I aimed for 500 calories from food, and 500 from exercise. I'd go % based on the intake side if I was doing it again though (particularly once "exercise" became "training".)

TDEE could be wrong by over estimating activity level, but I would suggest that calorie counting normally falls down on accuracy of recording.

Mellor

GreeBo wrote: »

But their TDEE and intake are the two parameters into the function of any weight loss/gain.

Yes. Current intake and current TDEE.

For me at least, to explain this to the OP we need to know whats changed in both TDEE and intake.

And that’s precisely where you are going wrong.
The weight loss is a product of Current TDEE - current intake. The change from previous to current is not a factor. Big change or small change does not explain or contribute to why it’s only a 1lb loss.
Weight loss is decided by deficit. Imo highlighting “change” as relevant only feeds into the misconceptions people having.

Oranage2

GreeBo wrote: »

Its only important in understanding what changes are/are not happening.

Your weight loss is always tied to intake vs TDEE.
Your previous intake has no bearing on this.

Yes i agree, but if no weight loss is happening after a few weeks and the person is sure their calories are correct, then it's important to look at.

GreeBo

Mellor wrote: »

Yes. Current intake and current TDEE.


And that’s precisely where you are going wrong.
The weight loss is a product of Current TDEE - current intake. The change from previous to current is not a factor. Big change or small change does not explain or contribute to why it’s only a 1lb loss.
Weight loss is decided by deficit. Imo highlighting “change” as relevant only feeds into the misconceptions people having.

I'm not at all trying to say previous intake or tdee are a factor, not at all!

I'm saying the difference between current and previous will help explain to the op why they are not seeing the radical transformation they expected.

The op clearly feels that 1300 intake is a big difference so they should see a big change. If they were previously, unknowingly on 1350 then it won't.

You are either misreading or misinterpreting my posts if you think I am in any way saying that past performance impacts current performance.

GreeBo

Oranage2 wrote: »

Yes i agree, but if no weight loss is happening after a few weeks and the person is sure their calories are correct, then it's important to look at.

No, if no weight loss is happening it means current intake and current tdee are wrong. The past is irrelevant.

jim o doom

Cill94 wrote: »

All diets are caloric reduction diets.

Fasting works the same way as any other diet. It just reduces your calories by giving you less time in a day to eat them.

Insulin sensitivity can also be improved on a normal diet by just eating less sugary crap and exercising regularly.

Metabolic issues from dieting is aren't a concern if things are done sensibly i.e. a small deficit.

As I've explained already, it does not just create a deficit. Your body is literally producing glucagon instead of insulin, that does not happen on a "mild caloric deficit", that only happens with fasting.

They've recently used fasting based diets to cure people of Type 2 Diabetese, and type 2 diabetics are generally overweight, correct? So they both lose weight, and cure themselves of diabetes with fasting.

I also suggest just simply giving a it a try, and not rejecting it out of hand like you are doing.

But feel free to ignore the good science behind it, that it can cure type 2 diabetes and simply respond that mild caloric deficit does the same thing.

(edit) standard diet based caloric restriction does work for some, but not all. People can try fasting and see how it changes their relationship with food. Rejecting it out of hand without giving it a chance is close minded.

I'm not saying fasting does not include caloric restriction - of course it does, it's the other bodily adaptations caused by fasting that are the true benefit, in ADDITION to caloric restriction.

Alf Veedersane

jim o doom wrote: »

(edit) standard diet based caloric restriction does work for some, but not all. People can try fasting and see how it changes their relationship with food. Rejecting it out of hand without giving it a chance is close minded.

I'm not saying fasting does not include caloric restriction - of course it does

Thats all anyone is saying in relation to fasting. That it's a means to reduce calories. I haven't seen anyone dismiss it out of hand...just that it's one of a number of ways to reduce calories.

Fasting wouldn't be my cup of tea but it's yours and that's what matters for you.

Different ways work for different people.

Mellor

GreeBo wrote: »

You are either misreading or misinterpreting my posts if you think I am in any way saying that past performance impacts current performance.

You keep saying you know it doesn’t affect current weight loss. But then you also say;

GreeBo wrote: »

I
The op clearly feels that 1300 intake is a big difference so they should see a big change. If they were previously, unknowingly on 1350 then it won't..

If they were previously eating 1350, which is a deficit of about 450, that wouldn’t affect the weight they lose on 1300.
I very much doubt they were eating 1350 previously.

You seem to be making a link between previous intake and and TDEE. There isn’t one.
Feel like this is going in circles, So good luck OP

jim o doom

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Thats all anyone is saying in relation to fasting. That it's a means to reduce calories. I haven't seen anyone dismiss it out of hand...just that it's one of a number of ways to reduce calories.

Fasting wouldn't be my cup of tea but it's yours and that's what matters for you.

Different ways work for different people.

I agree it's not for everyone, but there's more to it than simple caloric reduction, and that is scientifically proven.

Reduced insulin resistance and increased insulin sensitivity - this doesn't happen with standard daily caloric restriction, it only happens with fasting.

Same for the body producing glucagon and not insulin. These things are not "caloric restriction", instead it's a bodily adaptation and reduction in the harm caused by being in a constantly high caloric state.

Different strokes for different folks, but don't simply dismiss it as another method of caloric restriction.

If it was as simple as that, they wouldn't be using fasting to help cure certain people with Type 2 diabetes.

Macy0161

"Scientifically Proven" is a bit more than I've seen. Plenty of research of potential or suggested benefits, which is a bit different to proven.

Cill94

jim o doom wrote: »

I agree it's not for everyone, but there's more to it than simple caloric reduction, and that is scientifically proven.

Reduced insulin resistance and increased insulin sensitivity - this doesn't happen with standard daily caloric restriction, it only happens with fasting.

Same for the body producing glucagon and not insulin. These things are not "caloric restriction", instead it's a bodily adaptation and reduction in the harm caused by being in a constantly high caloric state.

Different strokes for different folks, but don't simply dismiss it as another method of caloric restriction.

If it was as simple as that, they wouldn't be using fasting to help cure certain people with Type 2 diabetes.

The OP is not diabetic as far as I'm aware, so the benefits of fasting you're espousing aren't relevant. It's like coming on here and telling her to do the keto diet because it can be useful for epileptics. The OP could well find fasting works for them, but she's making progress, so why mess with that by trying to get her to completely overhaul her diet?

This entire thread has devolved into arguing minor details and away from actually helping this person, who probably has no idea what you guys are talking about anymore.

Zzzz11whsqo

Cill94 wrote: »

The OP is not diabetic as far as I'm aware, so the benefits of fasting you're espousing aren't relevant. It's like coming on here and telling her to do the keto diet because it can be useful for epileptics. The OP could well find fasting works for them, but she's making progress, so why mess with that by trying to get her to completely overhaul her diet?

This entire thread has devolved into arguing minor details and away from actually helping this person, who probably has no idea what you guys are talking about anymore.

You do realise that insulin plays a very important part in more than just diabetic people, don't you?

Cill94

Zzzz11whsqo wrote: »

You do realise that insulin plays a very important part in more than just diabetic people, don't you?

Its role in fat loss is entirely overstated and has been refuted by a large number of studies at this point. Hence the lack of difference in weight loss when high and low carb diets are compared when matched for total calories and protein.

Zzzz11whsqo

Cill94 wrote: »

Its role in fat loss is entirely overstated and has been refuted by a large number of studies at this point. Hence the lack of difference in weight loss when high and low carb diets are compared when matched for total calories and protein.

Its effect as an anabolic hormone can't be understated either, and its impact on muscle-building and therefore on a person's metabolic rate can't be understated when taking all factors around body weight into account.

Alf Veedersane

jim o doom wrote: »

I agree it's not for everyone, but there's more to it than simple caloric reduction, and that is scientifically proven.

Reduced insulin resistance and increased insulin sensitivity - this doesn't happen with standard daily caloric restriction, it only happens with fasting.

Same for the body producing glucagon and not insulin. These things are not "caloric restriction", instead it's a bodily adaptation and reduction in the harm caused by being in a constantly high caloric state.

Different strokes for different folks, but don't simply dismiss it as another method of caloric restriction.

If it was as simple as that, they wouldn't be using fasting to help cure certain people with Type 2 diabetes.

Insulin resistance and insulin sensitivity are also linked to the amount of fat you have. The more fat you have, the higher the blood level of free fatty acids you have and that decreases insulin sensitivity, directly and indirectly.

Weight loss increases insulin sensitivity primarily because of the reduction in fatty acids.

The studies that demonstrated that didn't get into the means by which the caloric restriction was achieved.

Cill94

Zzzz11whsqo wrote: »

Its effect as an anabolic hormone can't be understated either, and its impact on muscle-building and therefore on a person's metabolic rate can't be understated when taking all factors around body weight into account.

I'm aware of the functions of insulin in muscle building. Whatever muscle building benefits you could potentially reap from the increased insulin sensitivity on a fasting diet are likely completely negated by the fact that you aren't eating for huge chunks of time.

Nevertheless, this is probably not information that is going to help someone with a BMI of >30. They just need to exercise and eat better.

El Tarangu

OP must have dropped the rest of the weight since then, as they haven't been back to respond/thank everyone for their advice.

Macy0161

El Tarangu wrote: »

OP must have dropped the rest of the weight since then, as they haven't been back to respond/thank everyone for their advice.

Wading through the amount of bs probably drove them out for a run!

GreeBo

Mellor wrote: »

You keep saying you know it doesn’t affect current weight loss. But then you also say;


If they were previously eating 1350, which is a deficit of about 450, that wouldn’t affect the weight they lose on 1300.
I very much doubt they were eating 1350 previously.

You seem to be making a link between previous intake and and TDEE. There isn’t one.
Feel like this is going in circles, So good luck OP

You are still reading something into my posts that I'm not saying.
previous has no impact on current loss, it impacts the ops understanding of current loss, that's all I'm saying but you keep reading my posts starting from a position of assuming that I don't understand the basic facts. I do.

Sunrise_Sunset

I'm 5 ft 2 inches also. I started at 9st 8lbs and lost 15 lbs recently. I still have about 5 lbs more to go to reach my goal.
Calorie intake of about 1200 per day, 30 mins cardio 4 times per week (spinning, circuits etc), strength training 4-5 times per week.
For me I have noticed it's the calorie intake that has the biggest impact. You have to be eating in a deficit. Next is strength training, followed by cardio.

Mellor

GreeBo wrote: »

You are still reading something into my posts that I'm not saying.
previous has no impact on current loss,

I’m aware you’re not saying that. I said as much in a previous post.

it impacts the ops understanding of current loss,

This is the part I disagree with. If they are making that mistake, would make more sense to explain how deficits work.

If they answer that they were eating 1800 or 2400, what changes in the advice.

GreeBo

Mellor wrote: »

I’m aware you’re not saying that. I said as much in a previous post.



This is the part I disagree with. If they are making that mistake, would make more sense to explain how deficits work.

If they answer that they were eating 1800 or 2400, what changes in the advice.

A million people have already explained how deficits work.
Nothing changes in the advice, that's what I keep saying.
But if the op counts the calories they were previously eating and sees that it wasn't significantly more than 1300 it will help them understand why the weight loss isn't more significant.
It doesn't impact anything other than helping the op understand.

If I start getting 10 hours sleep but am still just as tired as I was beforeb getting the 10 hours, it would make more sense to me if it turns out that previously I was getting 9.5 hours and just never tracked it.
It makes no difference to why I am tired, but I thought I was making a big change so expected a big result.