Massive struggle to lose weight

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the illiterate weirdo who keeps talking about desert islands and boxes? That must be the same person.

DP. No, it’s actually a very clear illustration of a simple scientific truth that’s been demonstrated repeatedly through research — when you eat fewer calories than your body required to support your activity level, you lose weight over the long term. That’s simply, irrevocably, demonstrably true. Name calling on the part of people who don’t want to accept that fact doesn’t change reality.

Are there very, very many things that impact how many calories each individual needs as well as how many calories each individual’s body can get from a particular serving of food? Sure, those things vary wildly, so if you fed 10 different people who weigh the same amount the same exact foods for 6 months, they would absolutely wind up weighing very different amounts at the end. That doesn’t change the physics however - if I eat fewer calories than my body needs, I will lose weight in the long term.

In addition to all of the objective things like genetics, gut bacteria, hormones, NEAT, exercise, body composition, etc. that impact how many calories a five individual needs, it’s also true that

- the actual energy content of food varies widely from label claims.
- the number of calories burned from exercise is impossible to measure without specialized lab equipment, most gym machines wildly overestimate it, and most people’s intuitive sense of this is off by an order of magnitude.
- all humans are terrible at estimating how much they are eating, often getting it wrong by at least 100%.
- the human brain is programmed to ear all the yummy fat and sugar, and really good at deceiving the logical brain that wants to eat healthily.
- behavior change is really, really hard and friends and family will actively sabotage efforts to cut calories more often than not.

So yeah, weight loss is both very simple and incredibly, incredibly hard.

Finally someone who gets it!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is your body type? Read up on that.
You can try tailor your workout and food intake according to what you want and by body type.

If I eat as little as what you really list, I would be getting dizzy.

“Body type” is not really a thing. There are meaningful genetic differences between people in terms of how much they respond to resistance exercise, their mix of fast and slow twitch muscle fibers, lung capacity, NEAT, etc. Body composition is also important — a 200 pound dude with 40% body fat has different calorie and proteins requirements than a 200 pound guy with 7% body fat. But “body type” like ectomorph/endomorph or apple/pear or whatever is not a thing in terms of fitness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have no idea whether OP even needs to lose weight because she hasn’t told us her height, weight, and age.

Maybe she can’t lose weight because she is already too thin. But we don’t know.

This. OP hasn't given us these stats and seem to not want to. I would assume she's already very thin. Running 3-4 miles in 30 minutes is pretty fast. Adding an extra hour of lifting weights at the end of the day makes me think she has an eating disorder or body dysmorphia. OP needs a doctors opinion.

Agreed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the illiterate weirdo who keeps talking about desert islands and boxes? That must be the same person.

DP. No, it’s actually a very clear illustration of a simple scientific truth that’s been demonstrated repeatedly through research — when you eat fewer calories than your body required to support your activity level, you lose weight over the long term. That’s simply, irrevocably, demonstrably true. Name calling on the part of people who don’t want to accept that fact doesn’t change reality.

Are there very, very many things that impact how many calories each individual needs as well as how many calories each individual’s body can get from a particular serving of food? Sure, those things vary wildly, so if you fed 10 different people who weigh the same amount the same exact foods for 6 months, they would absolutely wind up weighing very different amounts at the end. That doesn’t change the physics however - if I eat fewer calories than my body needs, I will lose weight in the long term.

In addition to all of the objective things like genetics, gut bacteria, hormones, NEAT, exercise, body composition, etc. that impact how many calories a five individual needs, it’s also true that

- the actual energy content of food varies widely from label claims.
- the number of calories burned from exercise is impossible to measure without specialized lab equipment, most gym machines wildly overestimate it, and most people’s intuitive sense of this is off by an order of magnitude.
- all humans are terrible at estimating how much they are eating, often getting it wrong by at least 100%.
- the human brain is programmed to ear all the yummy fat and sugar, and really good at deceiving the logical brain that wants to eat healthily.
- behavior change is really, really hard and friends and family will actively sabotage efforts to cut calories more often than not.

So yeah, weight loss is both very simple and incredibly, incredibly hard.

Finally someone who gets it!!

I'm not so sure. Is this suggesting that my body's weight gain or loss is solely related to the number of calories I consume, and not the glycemic impact of what's behind those calories? If so, then it is totally bonkers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the illiterate weirdo who keeps talking about desert islands and boxes? That must be the same person.

DP. No, it’s actually a very clear illustration of a simple scientific truth that’s been demonstrated repeatedly through research — when you eat fewer calories than your body required to support your activity level, you lose weight over the long term. That’s simply, irrevocably, demonstrably true. Name calling on the part of people who don’t want to accept that fact doesn’t change reality.

Are there very, very many things that impact how many calories each individual needs as well as how many calories each individual’s body can get from a particular serving of food? Sure, those things vary wildly, so if you fed 10 different people who weigh the same amount the same exact foods for 6 months, they would absolutely wind up weighing very different amounts at the end. That doesn’t change the physics however - if I eat fewer calories than my body needs, I will lose weight in the long term.

In addition to all of the objective things like genetics, gut bacteria, hormones, NEAT, exercise, body composition, etc. that impact how many calories a five individual needs, it’s also true that

- the actual energy content of food varies widely from label claims.
- the number of calories burned from exercise is impossible to measure without specialized lab equipment, most gym machines wildly overestimate it, and most people’s intuitive sense of this is off by an order of magnitude.
- all humans are terrible at estimating how much they are eating, often getting it wrong by at least 100%.
- the human brain is programmed to ear all the yummy fat and sugar, and really good at deceiving the logical brain that wants to eat healthily.
- behavior change is really, really hard and friends and family will actively sabotage efforts to cut calories more often than not.

So yeah, weight loss is both very simple and incredibly, incredibly hard.

Finally someone who gets it!!

I'm not so sure. Is this suggesting that my body's weight gain or loss is solely related to the number of calories I consume, and not the glycemic impact of what's behind those calories? If so, then it is totally bonkers.

This is a meta analysis of short and long term studies of the impact of glycemic index and glycemic load on body weight.

As you will see in section 4.2, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that GI or GL make any difference in BMI, body composition or waist circumference. The data from different studies is mixed. One consistent finding is that reducing calories is associated with lower BMI in all studies every time.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6213615/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think I exercise decently and eat an OK diet, yet am massively struggling to lose any weight. Everyday I run 30 minutes at lunch for 3-4 miles, depending on howmim feeling. After work, I lift weights for about 1 hour and have been lifting for the last 2 years. I am quite strong at this point. I think I've been eating relatively healthy for a while. Yesterday I had one cup of yogurt and an apple for breakfast, for lunch just a 1/4 cup of nuts and a banana and then chicken soup with a tomato based broth with potatoes and carrots and a side salad. That's a typical day of eating for me. I do not snack that often, never eat fast food, and barely drink alcohol. Yet I cannot lose weight. My blood pressure remains high and I may have sleep apnea. I estimate that after exercise and with my typical diet, I am living off of 1500-1800 calories per day. I just cannot fathom that my metabolism is so slow that I need to cut even more food out so that I'd be living only off of 1000 calories or less per day. Is this a sign of some sort of metabolic syndrome? I'd think I'd passout if I ate less and tried to workout. It'd also significantly impact my strength training if I ate a lot less food.

There is really no secret as to why you are not losing weight. The clues are in your own post.

It has been shown over and over that people overestimate calories they burn, and underestimate calories they eat.
You are clearly eating more than 1500-1800 calories per day, as you are taking into account calories burned, which are overestimated. Do not take your estimates into account, you have no idea how many calories you are burning. You are eating over 2000 calories as you take into account what you think you burned. You don't say how many potatoes you are eating nor carrots. All are healthy, but all could be highly caloric. You do not have any kind of metabolic issue; you would not pass out with less than 1500 calories without taking into account what you think you are burning during your work outs.

Weightlifting might be good for you, but it does not burn many calories. How fast are you actually running to go over 3-4 miles in half an hour? That is fast running indeed, do that in the evening instead of weightlifting, do not take into account your "burned calories" to add more food to your daily intake and voila.
I am, quite frankly, surprised that you are not gaining weight eating that much and more.

[Anonymous]

Weight loss is hard due to eating habits, exercise habits and lifestyle habits. Also due to money. Not to any difficult math that some would have you believe, as in "my friend eats 10K calories per day and she is skinny as a stick! I eat 1200 calories per day and weight 200lbs. Life is so unfair!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the illiterate weirdo who keeps talking about desert islands and boxes? That must be the same person.

DP. No, it’s actually a very clear illustration of a simple scientific truth that’s been demonstrated repeatedly through research — when you eat fewer calories than your body required to support your activity level, you lose weight over the long term. That’s simply, irrevocably, demonstrably true. Name calling on the part of people who don’t want to accept that fact doesn’t change reality.

Are there very, very many things that impact how many calories each individual needs as well as how many calories each individual’s body can get from a particular serving of food? Sure, those things vary wildly, so if you fed 10 different people who weigh the same amount the same exact foods for 6 months, they would absolutely wind up weighing very different amounts at the end. That doesn’t change the physics however - if I eat fewer calories than my body needs, I will lose weight in the long term.

In addition to all of the objective things like genetics, gut bacteria, hormones, NEAT, exercise, body composition, etc. that impact how many calories a five individual needs, it’s also true that

- the actual energy content of food varies widely from label claims.
- the number of calories burned from exercise is impossible to measure without specialized lab equipment, most gym machines wildly overestimate it, and most people’s intuitive sense of this is off by an order of magnitude.
- all humans are terrible at estimating how much they are eating, often getting it wrong by at least 100%.
- the human brain is programmed to ear all the yummy fat and sugar, and really good at deceiving the logical brain that wants to eat healthily.
- behavior change is really, really hard and friends and family will actively sabotage efforts to cut calories more often than not.

So yeah, weight loss is both very simple and incredibly, incredibly hard.

Finally someone who gets it!!

I'm not so sure. Is this suggesting that my body's weight gain or loss is solely related to the number of calories I consume, and not the glycemic impact of what's behind those calories? If so, then it is totally bonkers.

This is a meta analysis of short and long term studies of the impact of glycemic index and glycemic load on body weight.

As you will see in section 4.2, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that GI or GL make any difference in BMI, body composition or waist circumference. The data from different studies is mixed. One consistent finding is that reducing calories is associated with lower BMI in all studies every time.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6213615/

A fair reading indicates that some of the RCTs show a benefit to lower GI whereas some others do not support that conclusion. I would suggest anyone fighting weight give it a try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the illiterate weirdo who keeps talking about desert islands and boxes? That must be the same person.

DP. No, it’s actually a very clear illustration of a simple scientific truth that’s been demonstrated repeatedly through research — when you eat fewer calories than your body required to support your activity level, you lose weight over the long term. That’s simply, irrevocably, demonstrably true. Name calling on the part of people who don’t want to accept that fact doesn’t change reality.

Are there very, very many things that impact how many calories each individual needs as well as how many calories each individual’s body can get from a particular serving of food? Sure, those things vary wildly, so if you fed 10 different people who weigh the same amount the same exact foods for 6 months, they would absolutely wind up weighing very different amounts at the end. That doesn’t change the physics however - if I eat fewer calories than my body needs, I will lose weight in the long term.

In addition to all of the objective things like genetics, gut bacteria, hormones, NEAT, exercise, body composition, etc. that impact how many calories a five individual needs, it’s also true that

- the actual energy content of food varies widely from label claims.
- the number of calories burned from exercise is impossible to measure without specialized lab equipment, most gym machines wildly overestimate it, and most people’s intuitive sense of this is off by an order of magnitude.
- all humans are terrible at estimating how much they are eating, often getting it wrong by at least 100%.
- the human brain is programmed to ear all the yummy fat and sugar, and really good at deceiving the logical brain that wants to eat healthily.
- behavior change is really, really hard and friends and family will actively sabotage efforts to cut calories more often than not.

So yeah, weight loss is both very simple and incredibly, incredibly hard.

Finally someone who gets it!!

I'm not so sure. Is this suggesting that my body's weight gain or loss is solely related to the number of calories I consume, and not the glycemic impact of what's behind those calories? If so, then it is totally bonkers.

This is a meta analysis of short and long term studies of the impact of glycemic index and glycemic load on body weight.

As you will see in section 4.2, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that GI or GL make any difference in BMI, body composition or waist circumference. The data from different studies is mixed. One consistent finding is that reducing calories is associated with lower BMI in all studies every time.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6213615/

A fair reading indicates that some of the RCTs show a benefit to lower GI whereas some others do not support that conclusion. I would suggest anyone fighting weight give it a try.

Sure, and observational studies show differences in gender and race, so sure, give it a try. My point was more that it’s not “bonkers” — as PP suggested — to say that eating fewer calories will result in weight loss, since that’s what happened in every intervention study.

[Anonymous]

High BP is not good and increased inflammation and stress hormones maybe working against OP's diet and exercise.

How much sleep are you getting? Consistent 7-8 hours of sleep will help lower BP and reduce stress cortisol buildup. This will also mitigate appetite.

Next focus on calorie deficit. Reduce workout and tailor it to energy availability so you don't exhaust or injure yourself.

By sleep and diet alone you can lose weight. Keep exercise moderate based on energy levels.

[Anonymous]

keto. Protein, no carbs, no sugar. I've lost 70 pounds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I never believe these posters who claim they eat this very specific diet every day and can’t lose weight. So you never do the following:

- go to a HH
- celebrate a birthday and have a piece of cake
- cook a big breakfast on Christmas morning
- attend a cookout in the summer
- be invited to dinner somewhere
- attend a dinner party

My point is it’s very hard to truly maintain the diet you’re describing on a regular basis unless you have no life. This makes me think your post is misleading which makes me think you may be lying to yourself (and us) about your diet and lifestyle.

+1. The time in my life when I lost 40 pounds, I was actually fanatical about sticking to the menu I planned for the week and avoided all of this stuff (for example, would have sparkling water at HH and avoid all snacks). Once I lost, I was able to maintain it while reincorporating flexibility for these types of events, but in the phase of actually losing it’s so difficult because even small variations can really slow or erase progress.

[Anonymous]

Totally agree with those saying that calories are the problem. You have to track them religiously, not just eyeball them. I just read an article the other day from a doctor that said a typically mid life woman should have 1,200 a day and after menopause 1,000 a day. That has been my experience as well.

There is nothing wrong with apples and bananas but I would agree that you can overdo fruits. I would replace some fruits with vegetables and add more non-animal protein like beans, nuts, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree with those saying that calories are the problem. You have to track them religiously, not just eyeball them. I just read an article the other day from a doctor that said a typically mid life woman should have 1,200 a day and after menopause 1,000 a day. That has been my experience as well.

There is nothing wrong with apples and bananas but I would agree that you can overdo fruits. I would replace some fruits with vegetables and add more non-animal protein like beans, nuts, etc.

That’s exactly as valid as saying “typically you should burn about a 2 gallons of gas driving to your in-laws’ house for the holidays.” How much gas you need depends on how far you go. How many calories you need depend on activity, hormones, size…

This post has got to be trolling, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree with those saying that calories are the problem. You have to track them religiously, not just eyeball them. I just read an article the other day from a doctor that said a typically mid life woman should have 1,200 a day and after menopause 1,000 a day. That has been my experience as well.

There is nothing wrong with apples and bananas but I would agree that you can overdo fruits. I would replace some fruits with vegetables and add more non-animal protein like beans, nuts, etc.

Please link this article because menopause does not slow your metabolism that much.

Most people require fewer calories as they age because they become significantly less active and as a result gradually lose muscle, but these are things that change gradually not overnight the minute you hit 40 as many want to think/blame.