What am I doing wrong!

Xxhaylsxx

Hi guys, long time lurker here but decided to get this off my chest as I am not really sure where I am going wrong with my diet and exercise.

I have about 3 stone to lose in all and I started my weight loss journey early January. I exercise 5 days a week. I do two days of weight training, two cardio days and one evening of pilates. Should I be looking to do more cardio/weights?

My diet is fairly good or so I thought. But in 4 weeks I have not lost any weight at all which is pretty disheartening seeing as I have lots to lose. Below is a typical day's diet. Any recommendations on what to change/add to help would be much appreciated.

Breakfast: Porridge/Weetabix

Morning Snack: Handful of nuts/Banana/Apple

Lunch: Soup/Salad/Leftovers from dinner

Dinner: Chicken breast with veg/Minute steak with veg/cod fillet with veg

I have cut out all white bread/pasta/potatoes for the past four weeks. I also have not eaten any sweets or chocolate etc for the 4 weeks. (apart from one slice of cake on my birthday)

Anything else I should or should not be doing? Really need to start losing to boost my motivation and confidence.

Thanks guys!

zl1whqvjs75cdy

I'm not exactly an expert on this but I'll give my two cents. I think the main thing is your diet. You need to work out exactly how many calories you are taking in. Then calculate your base metabolic rate. Eat less calories than that and you should be golden. An app such as my fitness pal is really helpful for logging intake and calculating how many calories you've had.

Alf Veedersane

Do you look/feel any different? The scales shouldn't be the arbiter of what an improvement is.

If you're weight training, extra muscle might balance it out.

Use something like myfitnesspal, enter everything you eat and how much of it you eat and it will tell you your total calroie intake. That's a decent starting point.

sopretty

I'd say it's because you're converting fat to muscle. I think fat is twice the volume of muscle per gram/lb/stone or something like that. You have probably lost inches. If so, that's all good!

Xxhaylsxx

Thanks for the replies guys. I use two apps on my phone my fitness pal and noom coach. I log everything I eat on that and my calories each day are coming in at between 1200 calories (what noom suggests) and 1400 (what my fitness pal suggests). Perhaps you are right with the losing inches and converting fat to muscle I certainly hope so. Havent noticed much of a difference in my body though. Ill stick at it for another few weeks and if I have not lost anything by then I will really think i am doing something wrong.

Penny Tration

1200 cals seems extremely low for the amount of exercise you're doing.

thegreatiam

what are your stats? height, weight, age, sex, body fat% (if you know it)

runawaybishop

Xxhaylsxx wrote: »

Thanks for the replies guys. I use two apps on my phone my fitness pal and noom coach. I log everything I eat on that and my calories each day are coming in at between 1200 calories (what noom suggests) and 1400 (what my fitness pal suggests). Perhaps you are right with the losing inches and converting fat to muscle I certainly hope so. Havent noticed much of a difference in my body though. Ill stick at it for another few weeks and if I have not lost anything by then I will really think i am doing something wrong.

1200 is very little. What weight and height are you? Use pics and/or measure yourself to see how your progress is - you cant rely on just the scales to track progress. Do you feel fitter after your 4 weeks of this new routine, i.e have you made progress on what you are lifting or how far/fast you are running?

Xxhaylsxx

thegreatiam wrote: »

what are your stats? height, weight, age, sex, body fat% (if you know it)

Female, 24, 5ft6, 185lbs, 24%bf(supposodly)

thegreatiam

Xxhaylsxx wrote: »

Female, 24, 5ft6, 185lbs, 24%bf(supposodly)

how did you come to 24%?

Xxhaylsxx

thegreatiam wrote: »

how did you come to 24%?

Well I have a scales at home which came out at 24.3% Didnt think that would be too accurate so my PT took a measurement with calipers and a scale and it came out as 24%

runawaybishop

Xxhaylsxx wrote: »

Female, 24, 5ft6, 185lbs, 24%bf(supposodly)

How are your energy levels. 1200 would be low for your stats. 2000 calories looks more accurate, given that you exercise moderately. It can be counter-intuitive but eating too little will slow weight loss.

Just scanning your diet and it looks like you are pretty low on protein. Since you said you track your intake can you post up your macros?

the groutch

your BMR would be 1600-1650 and then multiply that by about 1.3 to account for your physical activity comes to about 2,100.

so hard to see how you could be eating 1200-1400 and not have lost ANY weight.

thegreatiam

Xxhaylsxx wrote: »

Well I have a scales at home which came out at 24.3% Didn't think that would be too accurate so my PT took a measurement with calipers and a scale and it came out as 24%

doesn't sound right at all. I would forget that for now. Those types of scales are ridiculously inaccurate.


A good way to judge is visually:


But its not important, so no need to tell us.

using this site: http://www.1percentedge.com/ifcalc/
with your details and moderate activity levels I get bmr of 1600 ish and tdee of 2500

So if you really are doing all that exercise you need to be eating 1900+ on rest days and 2400+ on workout days.

I would say get your diet in order to some degree.

But I would also stress not to bother with scales so often, use other indicators like how you feel.

The more you measure the harder it is to see change. Avoid all measuring for a few months, take a picture now. and take a picture in 2 months, and stick to the right levels of protein fats and carbs and see how it goes.

edit
It may be an idea to eat at maintenance for a month and then try on a deficit.

Xxhaylsxx

thegreatiam wrote: »

doesn't sound right at all. I would forget that for now. Those types of scales are ridiculously inaccurate.


A good way to judge is visually:


But its not important, so no need to tell us.

using this site: http://www.1percentedge.com/ifcalc/
with your details and moderate activity levels I get bmr of 1600 ish and tdee of 2500

So if you really are doing all that exercise you need to be eating 1900+ on rest days and 2400+ on workout days.

I would say get your diet in order to some degree.

But I would also stress not to bother with scales so often, use other indicators like how you feel.

The more you measure the harder it is to see change. Avoid all measuring for a few months, take a picture now. and take a picture in 2 months, and stick to the right levels of protein fats and carbs and see how it goes.

edit
It may be an idea to eat at maintenance for a month and then try on a deficit.

I know how inaccurate they can be thats why I havent put too much thought into it. And the reason for the supposodly i put after the figure.

The pics are probably more accurate than anything else it seems!

So it would seem I am eating too little. I think where I have been going wrong now is I have not been upping my intake when I exercise. I have been sticking with a calorie intake if I was not exercising.

I will revisit my diet and try and work out a better plan and work on upping my intake in a healthy way.

And I will also try the picture approach. Thanks for your help. Thanks everyone for the replies and advice. I really appreciate it.

Hopefully in a few months time I will be able to come back and say it has worked. That I am on the way down to goal weight.

thomas anderson.

Muscle is heavier than fat. Go by inches lost and not by the scales.

More cardio if you want to lose weight

runawaybishop

thomas anderson. wrote: »

Muscle is heavier than fat. Go by inches lost and not by the scales.

More cardio if you want to lose weight

No and no.

Muscle weighs the same as fat. You eat less to lose weight.

Too Tough To Die

runawaybishop wrote: »

How are your energy levels. 1200 would be low for your stats. 2000 calories looks more accurate, given that you exercise moderately. It can be counter-intuitive but eating too little will slow weight loss.

Just scanning your diet and it looks like you are pretty low on protein. Since you said you track your intake can you post up your macros?

How can this be?

Stench Blossoms

Too Tough To Die wrote: »

How can this be?

You can't run a car on no fuel.

You need food to burn fat.

Too Tough To Die

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

You can't run a car on no fuel.

You need food to burn fat.

But starving yourself does burn fat (muscle loss too, granted), no?

runawaybishop

Too Tough To Die wrote: »

But starving yourself does burn fat (muscle loss too, granted), no?

Its a poor way to do it. You get tired and lethargic and your body slows to a crawl. Its more efficient to fuel yourself correctly.

oscar_mike

Sounds familiar alright. . . at one stage i was so bogged down because the scales was going nowhere no matter how well i ate!!! I tried low calorie, low fat, excessive exercise and NOTHING! Despite what people say its not as easy as eating less calories than you need. The body is remarkably resistant to weight loss and comes up with clever ways to piss you off i.e water retention, metabolism decrease, burning muscle, in addition not all calories are the same and can easily stall your progress!

Then i tried low carb/atkins eating and BOOM! the weight literally vanished. I was down 6-7 pounds in the first week and i haven't looked back since. 5 months on my diet is healthier than ever, the weight is staying off and i can still fit in pints and takeaways at the weekend ;-) Iv had to buy a ton of smaller jeans and t****s

runawaybishop

oscar_mike wrote: »

Sounds familiar alright. . . at one stage i was so bogged down because the scales was going nowhere no matter how well i ate!!! I tried low calorie, low fat, excessive exercise and NOTHING! Despite what people say its not as easy as eating less calories than you need. The body is remarkably resistant to weight loss and comes up with clever ways to piss you off i.e water retention, metabolism decrease, burning muscle, in addition not all calories are the same and can easily stall your progress!

Then i tried low carb/atkins eating and BOOM! the weight literally vanished. I was down 6-7 pounds in the first week and i haven't looked back since. 5 months on my diet is healthier than ever, the weight is staying off and i can still fit in pints and takeaways at the weekend ;-) Iv had to buy a ton of smaller jeans and t****s

If you aren't losing weight then you are eating too much, its really that simple. That said starving yourself isn't the best way to lose weight efficiently.

oscar_mike

Its not that simple really, unless you have been in that situation then you cant judge. . . .

runawaybishop

oscar_mike wrote: »

Its not that simple really, unless you have been in that situation then you cant judge. . . .

Unless you are outside the realm of physics, it is that simple.

oscar_mike

Let me guess, your going to accuse me of violating the first law of thermodynamics right?? brush up on your bio chem and metabolism before you do. . . .its that simple

runawaybishop

oscar_mike wrote: »

Let me guess, your going to accuse me of violating the first law of thermodynamics right?? brush up on your bio chem and metabolism before you do. . . .its that simple

I'm going to say you were eating more than you thought. Eating at a calorie deficient will cause you to lose weight. If you weren't losing weight you were not at a deficient.

oscar_mike

all im saying is that metabolism likes to resist weight loss with certain physiological tricks that negates a calorie deficit, at least in the short to medium term

runawaybishop

oscar_mike wrote: »

all im saying is that metabolism likes to resist weight loss with certain physiological tricks that negates a calorie deficit, at least in the short to medium term

Your metabolism may slow down slightly, but it cannot produce something out of nothing. People talk about starvation mode and weight not moving but the reality is that this is impossible.

Chronically undereating isn't conducive to good weight loss though.

Brian?

Xxhaylsxx wrote: »

Thanks for the replies guys. I use two apps on my phone my fitness pal and noom coach. I log everything I eat on that and my calories each day are coming in at between 1200 calories (what noom suggests) and 1400 (what my fitness pal suggests). Perhaps you are right with the losing inches and converting fat to muscle I certainly hope so. Havent noticed much of a difference in my body though. Ill stick at it for another few weeks and if I have not lost anything by then I will really think i am doing something wrong.

As others have said, you're eating too little.

You'll lose weight this way, but you'll lose muscle as well as fat. You could end up "skinny fat". You seem to have a decent idea what to eat, add in some extra kcals from good fats, protein and low GI carbs.

Your activity level is high enough to support eating rice, sweet potato etc.

oscar_mike

i never said it does anything impossible, all im saying is it has ways to negate a calorie deficit. For example water retention increases and masks weight loss, a depressed metabolism will cause weight gain when the calorie restriction is relaxed. . .

runawaybishop

oscar_mike wrote: »

i never said it does anything impossible, all im saying is it has ways to negate a calorie deficit. For example water retention increases and masks weight loss, a depressed metabolism will cause weight gain when the calorie restriction is relaxed. . .

Water weight is irrelevant. You stated that your body has ways to negate a calorie deficiency. This is impossible. Your body cannot create weight on a calorie deficiency. All a depressed metabolism will cause is lower weight loss.

Brian?

Mod note: I'm not sure this back and forth debate is helping the OP. Maybe start a new thread and leave it there for now?

oscar_mike

Are you saying water weight is not weight? Does the scales see it that way?

martomcg

OP, are you weighing your food? Especially any carbs consumed? Do you count/measure the oil when you cook?

I found when is started actually weighing foods i was eating nearly 2x the calories i thought i was.

I agree with most of the other posts. For your stats I reckon you should be getting:
150-160g Protein
65-75g Fat
and the rest from carbs

To start using the above at 2000kcal/day:
Protein @150g = 600kcal
Fat @ 65g = 585kcal
Carb @ 200g = 815kcal

Eat at these ratio's for a week and see how weight loss is.

Then remove 25g (100kcal) each week untill you hit about 1600kcal (Definitely wouldnt advise going lower than this).

I'd be shocked if you didnt experience weighloss doing it this way. I wouldnt go adding or removing calories on workout days though. I found this just adds confusion and isnt really necessary.

Also make sure to add multi-vits, as exercising and eating at a deficit will tax your immune system.

thomas anderson.

runawaybishop wrote: »

No and no.

Muscle weighs the same as fat. You eat less to lose weight.

Yes and Yes

martomcg

thomas anderson. wrote: »

Yes and Yes

A pound is a pound! A pound of cotton weighs the same as a pound of iron.

The difference is density.

For example:

Two men of the same height and weight--both are 5'9'' and 180 lbs. One, however, looks overweight, with flabby arms and an untoned stomach, and one looks musclular and athletic.

How is this possible, when they both weigh the same?

Its down to body composition. One man is composed of mainly fat, and one is composed of hardly any fat.

Alf Veedersane

martomcg wrote: »

A pound is a pound! A pound of cotton weighs the same as a pound of iron.

The difference is density.

For example:

Two men of the same height and weight--both are 5'9'' and 180 lbs. One, however, looks overweight, with flabby arms and an untoned stomach, and one looks musclular and athletic.

How is this possible, when they both weigh the same?

Its down to body composition. One man is composed of mainly fat, and one is composed of hardly any fat.

It's like being at one of the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures.

Zillah

runawaybishop wrote: »

No and no.

Muscle weighs the same as fat. You eat less to lose weight.

Muscles weighs more than an equivalent volume of fat. It is more dense. Hence how you can easily gain weight while looking better.

You eat less to lose weight, yes. Cardio also burns calories, which causes you to burn fat if there is a net deficit.

oscar_mike

Not true, muscle does not weight the same as fat.

Alf Veedersane

oscar_mike wrote: »

Not true, muscle does not weight the same as fat.

It does if you have the same weight of both.

It's more dense which means that if you'd the same volume of muscle and fat, the muscle would be heavier.

runawaybishop

Zillah wrote: »

Muscles weighs more than an equivalent volume of fat. It is more dense.

Yes, i am aware of that. You need to be addressing someone else Maybe the post 2 above this.

Zillah

runawaybishop wrote: »

Yes, i am aware of that. You need to be addressing someone else Maybe the post 2 above this.

My point is that people obviously mean that muscle is more dense when they say it weighs more, by firing off a one-liner in disagreement without explaining or expanding on it you're just being obtuse and pedantic.

EDIT: Sorry Brian?, will stop now.

oscar_mike

So muscle does actually weigh heavier than fat then. . .

Alf Veedersane

oscar_mike wrote: »

So muscle does actually weigh heavier than fat then. . .

It's more dense.

1 kg of muscle = 1 kg of fat.

In the same way that 1 kg of lead weighs the same as 1kg of dust.

oscar_mike

Of course a kg of anything weighs the same as a kg of something else. . . but specifically by equal volume fat weighs less,

runawaybishop

Zillah wrote: »

My point is that people obviously mean that muscle is more dense when they say it weighs more, by firing off a one-liner in disagreement without explaining or expanding on it you're just being obtuse and pedantic.

EDIT: Sorry Brian?, will stop now.

I am being accurate. People trot out a lot of untrue lines they hear all the time, such as muscle is heavier than fat, your body will enter starvation mode, fat is bad etc etc etc. If people mean something they should type that, not something else that is incorrect.

oscar_mike

Just to add to that point, giving redundant and condescending advice to people struggling to loose weight is not ideal.

runawaybishop

oscar_mike wrote: »

Just to add to that point, giving redundant and condescending advice to people struggling to loose weight is not ideal.

I am sorry you felt I was being condescending to you. If you'd like to make a thread to discuss why you cant lose weight on a calorie deficient i will be happy to discuss.

oscar_mike

i welcome a good debate.... but why are you switching your stance to "you cant lose weight on a calorie deficient"? What has that got to do with it?

Alf Veedersane

oscar_mike wrote: »

i welcome a good debate.... but why are you switching your stance to "you cant lose weight on a calorie deficient"? What has that got to do with it?

I read it as "You don't always lose weight on a calorie deficit: discuss" as opposed to defending the notion that you don't lose weight on a calorie deficit.