If you are tracking food/portions and are not losing weight

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. Thyroid says normal but I wonder. 1500 - 1800 cals a day. I am measuring and meal prepping. Maybe I need to drink even more water.

No, you need to eat less.

Nah.

Sounds more like OP needs more rest and food. Body under stress and thus SLOWS down. Maybe a few days of high carb, low fat, med protein. 20 mins of weight lifting 3x a week.

She’s been dieting for three weeks and eating 1500-1800 calories. This isn’t a situation of chronic dieting with too little calories having slowed down the metabolism. She just needs to reduce her calories by a hundred or two a day to lose a bit faster.

If she is eating 1500 calories, subtract 6 miles worth of spent calories (-720), that's 780 calories for the day. Now you are suggesting to eat 520 calories daily? How sustainable is that? Once she stops walking, metabolism will be so slow, eating regular will cause weight gain in FAT.

you are overestimating calories burned through exercise by a LOT.

If oyu are eating x calories consistently and not losing weight then you are eating too many calories, really no way around it.

I think 100-120 calories is reasonable for an adult body to walk 1 mile. Furthermore, it's what research says. Do you really think if everyone went on a 500 calorie deficit will eventually get to sub 12 percent body fat? That cortisol, testosterone, hunger hormones, body's natural reaction to less food in order to slow metabolism, has no influence on the rate of fat loss?

Provide references from google scholar that shows weight loss is simply linear. over time.

Weigh loss is not linear but that is also because you can never know with certainty the exact number of calories you are burning and consuming. It is all an estimate. But the science is real if you consume fewer calories than you burn your body will then burn fat and muscle to make up for that energy difference.

if you continue to have a deficit you will eventually reach 12% body fat, most people just can't adhere to the level of adherence that is needed to do so. You will also need to consume fewer calories as you lose weight, not because you damaged your metabolism, but because the less you weigh the fewer calories you need to maintain that weight. It makes perfect sense. A semi truck needs more energy that a Fiat.

By your logic, pretty soon, she will have to drop to 500 calories daily in order to lose weight and if she eats 600 calories daily, she will be gaining?

What are you talking about?? I can not figure out your logic or if you have any logic.

Unless her TDEE is 500 she will never have to drop to 500 cal to lose weight.

My point was that if you weight 200 lb you can eat more and still lose weight than if you weight 120 lbs and are looking to lose weight. As you lose weight you need fewer calories to lose weight because you need fewer calories to maintain your weight.

Using a TDEE calculator with all factors the same (age, activity level, height). Someone who is 5'5". 40 yrs old, 200lbs and gets moderate exercise 4-5 days a week has a TDEE of 2312 cal. If that person now weighs 120 lbs their TDEE 1780. So while the 200 lb person could eat 1780 calories and still lose weight, the 120 lb person would not lose weight with that number of calories.

You are now taking an extreme example to support your logic. OP is already at ~700 calories at the end of the day and not losing weight. You suggested to eat 100-200 calories less. For the sake of arguments, if that puts her around 500-600 a day to start losing weight again, that means at 800 calories a day she will start gaining. Does 800 calories a day sound a lot to you? If so, get checked out.

You do know there are fitness models that are 120lbs consuming 2000-3000 calories daily right? They are not walking 6 miles a day. It comes down to metabolism that is all affected by HORMONES!

Age-related hormonal changes do not impact metabolism, according to recent research. Those fitness models have a high percent of muscle. Having a low % of muscle is metabolically devastating. OP should drop walking and start lifting.

You are telling me menopause does not impact metabolism?

That’s correct. It’s muscle loss, not age. If you maintain your muscle, your metabolism will not change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. Thyroid says normal but I wonder. 1500 - 1800 cals a day. I am measuring and meal prepping. Maybe I need to drink even more water.

No, you need to eat less.

Nah.

Sounds more like OP needs more rest and food. Body under stress and thus SLOWS down. Maybe a few days of high carb, low fat, med protein. 20 mins of weight lifting 3x a week.

She’s been dieting for three weeks and eating 1500-1800 calories. This isn’t a situation of chronic dieting with too little calories having slowed down the metabolism. She just needs to reduce her calories by a hundred or two a day to lose a bit faster.

If she is eating 1500 calories, subtract 6 miles worth of spent calories (-720), that's 780 calories for the day. Now you are suggesting to eat 520 calories daily? How sustainable is that? Once she stops walking, metabolism will be so slow, eating regular will cause weight gain in FAT.

you are overestimating calories burned through exercise by a LOT.

If oyu are eating x calories consistently and not losing weight then you are eating too many calories, really no way around it.

I think 100-120 calories is reasonable for an adult body to walk 1 mile. Furthermore, it's what research says. Do you really think if everyone went on a 500 calorie deficit will eventually get to sub 12 percent body fat? That cortisol, testosterone, hunger hormones, body's natural reaction to less food in order to slow metabolism, has no influence on the rate of fat loss?

Provide references from google scholar that shows weight loss is simply linear. over time.

Weigh loss is not linear but that is also because you can never know with certainty the exact number of calories you are burning and consuming. It is all an estimate. But the science is real if you consume fewer calories than you burn your body will then burn fat and muscle to make up for that energy difference.

if you continue to have a deficit you will eventually reach 12% body fat, most people just can't adhere to the level of adherence that is needed to do so. You will also need to consume fewer calories as you lose weight, not because you damaged your metabolism, but because the less you weigh the fewer calories you need to maintain that weight. It makes perfect sense. A semi truck needs more energy that a Fiat.

By your logic, pretty soon, she will have to drop to 500 calories daily in order to lose weight and if she eats 600 calories daily, she will be gaining?

What are you talking about?? I can not figure out your logic or if you have any logic.

Unless her TDEE is 500 she will never have to drop to 500 cal to lose weight.

My point was that if you weight 200 lb you can eat more and still lose weight than if you weight 120 lbs and are looking to lose weight. As you lose weight you need fewer calories to lose weight because you need fewer calories to maintain your weight.

Using a TDEE calculator with all factors the same (age, activity level, height). Someone who is 5'5". 40 yrs old, 200lbs and gets moderate exercise 4-5 days a week has a TDEE of 2312 cal. If that person now weighs 120 lbs their TDEE 1780. So while the 200 lb person could eat 1780 calories and still lose weight, the 120 lb person would not lose weight with that number of calories.

You are now taking an extreme example to support your logic. OP is already at ~700 calories at the end of the day and not losing weight. You suggested to eat 100-200 calories less. For the sake of arguments, if that puts her around 500-600 a day to start losing weight again, that means at 800 calories a day she will start gaining. Does 800 calories a day sound a lot to you? If so, get checked out.

You do know there are fitness models that are 120lbs consuming 2000-3000 calories daily right? They are not walking 6 miles a day. It comes down to metabolism that is all affected by HORMONES!

Ok now I get your logic and see your flaws. You can’t just subtract exercise calories from those consumed to say I’m eating 1500 burning 700 so living off 800. It doesn’t work like that. Let’s assume you BMR is 1500 and TDE with exercise is 2000. That is a deficit of 500. If you don’t track accurately, overeat on weekends, grab a snack here or there without thinking you can easily reduce the size of that deficit or cancel it out. I think op should meticulously track calories (weigh and measure food) eaten and her consistency with hitting her calories for a month before saying it’s not working. So often when it’s not working people just haven’t given it time or been as accurate or consistent as they think.

Weigh also fluctuates and can mask any changes. Weigh daily and track the trend over the course of a month to really see if it is changing.

I’ll also still argue that calories burned through exercise are not as high as we think and you should rarely eat more because you exercised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look at Julia dunaway instagram. She is an older lady and chef. She posts pix of what she eats in a day and it is truly amazing to see what a portion size really looks like.

NP. Thanks for sharing. She seems great.

[Anonymous]

I would agree muscle mass retention is critical as we age. I would also ignore any “calories burned” if we are talking about six miles of reported distance of movement through the day and whatever you might think you burned doing some weight lifting. Not only is it not accurate, you have to be working a whole lot harder than that to affect your real hunger for food indicating you actually need more fuel.

I’d learn how to safely life heavier weights and focus on large muscle groups.

But everybody is not the same. These are suggestions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. Thyroid says normal but I wonder. 1500 - 1800 cals a day. I am measuring and meal prepping. Maybe I need to drink even more water.

No, you need to eat less.

Nah.

Sounds more like OP needs more rest and food. Body under stress and thus SLOWS down. Maybe a few days of high carb, low fat, med protein. 20 mins of weight lifting 3x a week.

She’s been dieting for three weeks and eating 1500-1800 calories. This isn’t a situation of chronic dieting with too little calories having slowed down the metabolism. She just needs to reduce her calories by a hundred or two a day to lose a bit faster.

If she is eating 1500 calories, subtract 6 miles worth of spent calories (-720), that's 780 calories for the day. Now you are suggesting to eat 520 calories daily? How sustainable is that? Once she stops walking, metabolism will be so slow, eating regular will cause weight gain in FAT.

you are overestimating calories burned through exercise by a LOT.

If oyu are eating x calories consistently and not losing weight then you are eating too many calories, really no way around it.

I think 100-120 calories is reasonable for an adult body to walk 1 mile. Furthermore, it's what research says. Do you really think if everyone went on a 500 calorie deficit will eventually get to sub 12 percent body fat? That cortisol, testosterone, hunger hormones, body's natural reaction to less food in order to slow metabolism, has no influence on the rate of fat loss?

Provide references from google scholar that shows weight loss is simply linear. over time.

Weigh loss is not linear but that is also because you can never know with certainty the exact number of calories you are burning and consuming. It is all an estimate. But the science is real if you consume fewer calories than you burn your body will then burn fat and muscle to make up for that energy difference.

if you continue to have a deficit you will eventually reach 12% body fat, most people just can't adhere to the level of adherence that is needed to do so. You will also need to consume fewer calories as you lose weight, not because you damaged your metabolism, but because the less you weigh the fewer calories you need to maintain that weight. It makes perfect sense. A semi truck needs more energy that a Fiat.

By your logic, pretty soon, she will have to drop to 500 calories daily in order to lose weight and if she eats 600 calories daily, she will be gaining?

What are you talking about?? I can not figure out your logic or if you have any logic.

Unless her TDEE is 500 she will never have to drop to 500 cal to lose weight.

My point was that if you weight 200 lb you can eat more and still lose weight than if you weight 120 lbs and are looking to lose weight. As you lose weight you need fewer calories to lose weight because you need fewer calories to maintain your weight.

Using a TDEE calculator with all factors the same (age, activity level, height). Someone who is 5'5". 40 yrs old, 200lbs and gets moderate exercise 4-5 days a week has a TDEE of 2312 cal. If that person now weighs 120 lbs their TDEE 1780. So while the 200 lb person could eat 1780 calories and still lose weight, the 120 lb person would not lose weight with that number of calories.

You are now taking an extreme example to support your logic. OP is already at ~700 calories at the end of the day and not losing weight. You suggested to eat 100-200 calories less. For the sake of arguments, if that puts her around 500-600 a day to start losing weight again, that means at 800 calories a day she will start gaining. Does 800 calories a day sound a lot to you? If so, get checked out.

You do know there are fitness models that are 120lbs consuming 2000-3000 calories daily right? They are not walking 6 miles a day. It comes down to metabolism that is all affected by HORMONES!

Ok now I get your logic and see your flaws. You can’t just subtract exercise calories from those consumed to say I’m eating 1500 burning 700 so living off 800. It doesn’t work like that. Let’s assume you BMR is 1500 and TDE with exercise is 2000. That is a deficit of 500. If you don’t track accurately, overeat on weekends, grab a snack here or there without thinking you can easily reduce the size of that deficit or cancel it out. I think op should meticulously track calories (weigh and measure food) eaten and her consistency with hitting her calories for a month before saying it’s not working. So often when it’s not working people just haven’t given it time or been as accurate or consistent as they think.

Weigh also fluctuates and can mask any changes. Weigh daily and track the trend over the course of a month to really see if it is changing.

I’ll also still argue that calories burned through exercise are not as high as we think and you should rarely eat more because you exercised.

https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1530&context=srhonorsprog

The endocrine system plays a significant role in metabolic adaptation. There are several hormones that are involved in metabolic rate and regulation. These hormones play a role in the regulation of body composition, energy intake, and energy expenditure. Thyroid hormones, specifically T3, are directly related to metabolic rate. Hypothyroidism, or low-circulating thyroid hormone, contributes to a low metabolic rate and hyperthyroidism contributes to a high metabolic rate, which is more commonly referred to as a fast metabolism. A diagnosis of a hypothyroidism or hyperthyroidism is not the only condition in which these hormone levels vary. During a caloric deficit that is needed for weight loss, there will be fluctuations in these hormone levels (Trexler, E.T., A.E. Smith-Ryan, and L.E. Norton, 2014). .. This means that the brain receives signals that the body is in a state of low energy and the metabolic adaptations that occur are aimed at preserving body fat and reversing the effects of weight loss. In summary, there is a down-regulation of several hormones involved in regulating metabolic rate during a caloric deficit. Research shows there is a decrease in leptin, insulin, testosterone, and thyroid hormones with subsequent increases in cortisol and ghrelin. Evidence supports that these hormone levels remain in this fashion during maintenance of a low body fat percentage even after the period of active weight loss has ended. The body’s response to the changes in hormone levels that occur during and after weight loss is reflected in the arcuate nucleus (ARC) portion of the hypothalamus. Much like the hormonal changes discussed previously, METABOLIC ADAPTATION DURING WEIGHT LOSS 7 the changes that take place in the hypothalamus function to reduce the effects of weight loss by promoting metabolic adaptation (Maclean, P.S., et al., 2011).


Therefore, the previous suggestion of telling OP to continue to reduce calorie intake while calorie intake is already low is making OPs metabolism even worse.