Beyond frustrated!

CaliforniaDream

Since 4th January of this year I've adapted a new eating plan. I'm determined to be as healthy as I can be and I'm not viewing this as a quick diet to lose weight, but as a long term plan.
I work out 5 days a week and have given up alcohol. But the scales aren't budging. I know it's only one form of measurement but at the beginning there should be no reason for me to not see a result on the scale. I'm tracking absolutely everything I eat and have a fitbit to track exercise.
I've had bloodwork done recently and there was nothing out of the ordinary for it to be a medical condition.
I'm 5'5", female, aged 31 and starting weight is 185 and currently I'm 177. I know it's a drop but most of that was the first week and I've had 4 weeks (not consecutive) without a loss.
I'm on a calorie deficit of about 1,000 a day so would be expecting an average of 2lbs loss per week.
Am I crazy or missing something? My exercise routine would be two days of hiking for about 2 hours a day and three days of kickboxing for an hour each time. I might do a yoga class here and there on top of it and I'm on my feet and moving for work 5 days a week.
Below is a typical day of eating.

Breakfast - 2 large eggs, 1 slice of whole wheat bread, sprinkle of salt and decaf tea with skim milk.
Morning snack - small Fage nonfat yoghurt pot
Lunch - 2 slices of whole wheat bread, 2 slice of deli turkey/chicken meat, lettuce/spinach
Afternoon snack - handful of cashews/walnuts/almonds, decaf tea with skim milk.
Dinner - 0.5lb chicken/turkey/steak with various vegetables and spices.
I'll have a handful of raspberries/blackberries/strawberries throughout the day as well.
Apart from tea and water I don't drink anything else. I consume an average of 1,200-1,600 calories per day and burn about 2,400-2,600 per day.

What am I missing? Am I on track and not realising it? What would cause the scale to stay the same?

jenizzle

Btw, 8lbs weightloss is brilliant Hopefully you're not feeling disappointed by this progress!

Could be a few things going on here but some things stand out & notes:

- One major factor: Do you thing you're eating enough? A deficit of 1,000 calories a day might not be enough to fuel yourself properly. Max deficit would be around 15% of your TDEE. If you're burning ~2,400 a day, then you might want to look at eating around 2,000 a day. Eating 1,200 a day is just not sustainable
- FitBits aren't 100% accurate.
- Stress. Stressing about numbers. Stressing about logging into all the sites for exercise, food, sleep etc etc. Stressing about stress. Stressing about the scales. Stress, stress, stress. It does add up. Is it really worth it?
- Are you sleeping enough? 7-8 hours a day?
- Have you had a break where you've eaten your TDEE (i.e. the calories burned figure on FitBit) for a week?
- Have you tried taking the FitBit off for a week, and turned the apps off and eating healthy food when you're hungry? It seems like you know what to eat, so have the confidence to wing it for a week or 3 and see what happens
- You're a woman, and womens weight fluctuates all over the shop. TOM etc :rolleyes:
- Have you taken progress photos and taken body measurements instead?

I could've written your post I dunno how many times over the last few years and I've felt so frustrated. Best thing I did was hide the scales. My thoughts are much more positive as a result, and this has resulted in a change of focus when it comes to food and training. A lot goes on in the body outside of the number on the scales

Alf Veedersane

CaliforniaDream wrote: »

I consume an average of 1,200-1,600 calories per day and burn about 2,400-2,600 per day.

I would expect that the calories burned is off for a start. But that's beside the point. Being on a deficit of ~ 1000 kcals before factoring in a lot of exercise isn't sustainable. Nor is it likely to be the best solution.

I would suggest that with that level of activity, even assuming the calories burned is a third of what the fitbit is suggesting, you should be eating more. It might seem counter-intuitive but I would suspect that upping your calories.

Also, like jenizzle said, you're stressing so much about it that your cortisol levels are probably pretty high so there's bound to be more water retention. On top of affecting other hormones.

Tl;dr: well done on your weight loss thus far. Ease the calories up and stop stressing about the number on the scales too much. If you're making positive changes that are sustainable, you'll get positive results that are sustainable.

Actually, if you did nothing else but de-stress you'd probably see results in the short term.

Irishcrx

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Going hell for leather on calories isn't always a good thing , if you are too low the body will react by storing fat as an emergency as it will think it is being starved.

Try up the calories a little bit and eat at 15 - 20% below maintenance, losing weight correctly is a marathon not a sprint!

CaliforniaDream

Thanks for the replies. Just want to clarify a few things.

1. I'm getting enough sleep. I usually wake a few minutes before my alarm and rarely have to drag myself out of bed.
2. I understand fitits aren't 100% accurate but I would have thought they weren't wildly wrong.
3. According to Gem's post on the main fitness forum, my daily calories expenditure is around 2,700. So even considering both may be a few hundred calories off, I'm still in a deficit.
4. I've always been led to believe a weight loss of 1-2lbs per week is healthy. So my 1,000 calorie deficit would reflect this.
5. The 'eating too little' to lose weight is a myth right? I've never seen someone with an understanding of fitness and nutrition say otherwise. A deficit is a deficit.
6. Although my thread may seem otherwise, I'm not stressed. I log my food after I eat so I know exactly what I have and I don't think about my weight for the most part until I weigh in once a week.
I'm not obsessing with food/exercise at all because, as I said, this is a long term goal for me. So I view everything I do as ordinary and nothing to focus on if that makes sense.
Lastly, I eat every 3 hours so I'm rarely hungry anymore. If I am hungry I'll eat something.

If you can think of anything else I might be missing given the new information I'd appreciate it.
Thanks again.

Alf Veedersane

CaliforniaDream wrote: »

5. The 'eating too little' to lose weight is a myth right? I've never seen someone with an understanding of fitness and nutrition say otherwise. A deficit is a deficit.

A deficit is a deficit but there are plenty of hormonal effects that the CI/CO model doesn't account for, e.g. leptin, cortisol etc. While you may be eating at a deficit, if your cortisol levels are high because you're stressed about it, then you're going to retain more water, regardless of the deficit.

CaliforniaDream wrote: »

6. Although my thread may seem otherwise, I'm not stressed.

The title is 'Beyond Frustrated'. You can understand the impression that gives But it doesn't necessarily mean you're consciously stressed. Just an idea.

There's a really good podcast on Sigma Nutrition where Danny Lennon talks to Lyle MacDonald and they touch on some of this early on.

CaliforniaDream

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

A deficit is a deficit but there are plenty of hormonal effects that the CI/CO model doesn't account for, e.g. leptin, cortisol etc. While you may be eating at a deficit, if your cortisol levels are high because you're stressed about it, then you're going to retain more water, regardless of the deficit.



The title is 'Beyond Frustrated'. You can understand the impression that gives But it doesn't necessarily mean you're consciously stressed. Just an idea.

There's a really good podcast on Sigma Nutrition where Danny Lennon talks to Lyle MacDonald and they touch on some of this early on.

I completely get why people would think I'm stressed from my thread title. Poor choice of words on my part.
But I'm actually at a point in my life where I'm not stressing. I have a good work life, happy with my social life, enjoying being outside in the sunshine, no relationship stresses or worries in general.
If I posted this last year I'd definitely agree that stress was an issue. I thought it might be a medical issue but my doctor couldn't find anything abnormal and all my blood work results came back in the correct levels. Internally I'm healthier than most people surprisingly.

I just thought something might pop out for you guys that I'm not seeing. And if I wasn't so sure, I'd be looking at my stress and figure out how to handle it.

I'll check that link in a couple of hours though.

Irish_rat

CaliforniaDream wrote: »

So my 1,000 calorie deficit would reflect this.

1,000 calories deficit a day if you do no exercise and live a relatively sedentary life should result in weight loss.

You need to eat alot more for the workout's listed.

CaliforniaDream

Irish_rat wrote: »

1,000 calories deficit a day if you do no exercise and live a relatively sedentary life should result in weight loss.

You need to eat alot more for the workout's listed.

My deficit is based on what I burn working out too. If I didn't work out it would be less of a deficit.
I'm not opposed to upping the calories if it's a genuine concern but I can't see how eating more will result in a loss. I like to understand why I'm doing what I'm doing so if someone could explain the logic behind more calories = a loss I'd appreciate it.
I'm trying to have as much knowledge about everything as I can so I can understand why I'll have certain cravings, what I need to fuel my body and the most effective exercise for my goals etc.

I genuinely didn't think 1,200-1,600 calories per day was extremely low.

Mellor

2600 sounds very high. Is the Fitbit saying that, or did you work it out? Does the Fitbit "know" your current weight and gender? The post in the sticky you mentioned is wrong btw. It contains an error regarding exercise.

CaliforniaDream

Mellor wrote: »

2600 sounds very high. Is the Fitbit saying that, or did you work it out? Does the Fitbit "know" your current weight and gender? The post in the sticky you mentioned is wrong btw. It contains an error regarding exercise.

That was from the Fitbit and my own calculations from that post. The fitbit has my current weight and body fat measurements.
Based on the info given can you give me an indication on what you think is correct? And if it is in fact much lower, wouldn't that rule out my calorie intake being 'too low'.

The more I try and understand it, the more I get confused.

Slydice

I'd be thinking that it's probably not the maths that is at fault.

I know 2000 is roughly maintenance for most people. I don't do the food side of things well so I try to burn calories more using exercise. I find fat loss is more noticable over a week or two when I go above 1000 calories in my exercises.

If I was measuring and the maths looked good on paper, then I'd probably start trying to figure out where my measuring wasn't working.

Things I can think of doing:
- try a few different exercise monitoring apps to see how much calories they think I'm using
- try a few different food apps to see how much calories they say are in the food
- try just measuring the food calories using the KCAL number on the labels on the food items (most usually have them)

Mellor

Slydice wrote: »

I'd be thinking that it's probably not the maths that is at fault.

I know 2000 is roughly maintenance for most people...

OP is working off 2600-2700 maintenance

CaliforniaDream wrote: »

That was from the Fitbit and my own calculations from that post. The fitbit has my current weight and body fat measurements.
Based on the info given can you give me an indication on what you think is correct? And if it is in fact much lower, wouldn't that rule out my calorie intake being 'too low'.

The more I try and understand it, the more I get confused.

I've no idea how accurate Fitbits are. But I know that the post is wrong, involving exercise in particular. Does the fitbit know you are female? As that could account for some extra calories.

An online calculator (here, here or here [metric]) puts your BMR at around 1583. Times 1.2 for sedentary daily calories, is 1900. Then you should average your exercise over the week to give you an average energy burn. It's probably less than you think. Either estimate the figures, or maybe you can use fitbit data.

7 hours a week, maybe 400 calories an hour. Which is only an extra 300 cals over what you'd burn sitting out the sofa. Which puts your maintenance at around 2200.
2600 per day requires almost 5000 calories burned a week via exercise. I doubt you are close to that tbh.

FourAM

CaliforniaDream wrote: »

Since 4th January of this year I've adapted a new eating plan. I'm determined to be as healthy as I can be and I'm not viewing this as a quick diet to lose weight, but as a long term plan.
I work out 5 days a week and have given up alcohol. But the scales aren't budging. I know it's only one form of measurement but at the beginning there should be no reason for me to not see a result on the scale. I'm tracking absolutely everything I eat and have a fitbit to track exercise.
I've had bloodwork done recently and there was nothing out of the ordinary for it to be a medical condition.
I'm 5'5", female, aged 31 and starting weight is 185 and currently I'm 177. I know it's a drop but most of that was the first week and I've had 4 weeks (not consecutive) without a loss.
I'm on a calorie deficit of about 1,000 a day so would be expecting an average of 2lbs loss per week.
Am I crazy or missing something? My exercise routine would be two days of hiking for about 2 hours a day and three days of kickboxing for an hour each time. I might do a yoga class here and there on top of it and I'm on my feet and moving for work 5 days a week.
Below is a typical day of eating.

Breakfast - 2 large eggs, 1 slice of whole wheat bread, sprinkle of salt and decaf tea with skim milk.
Morning snack - small Fage nonfat yoghurt pot
Lunch - 2 slices of whole wheat bread, 2 slice of deli turkey/chicken meat, lettuce/spinach
Afternoon snack - handful of cashews/walnuts/almonds, decaf tea with skim milk.
Dinner - 0.5lb chicken/turkey/steak with various vegetables and spices.
I'll have a handful of raspberries/blackberries/strawberries throughout the day as well.
Apart from tea and water I don't drink anything else. I consume an average of 1,200-1,600 calories per day and burn about 2,400-2,600 per day.

What am I missing? Am I on track and not realising it? What would cause the scale to stay the same?

Do that for a longer period of time. It could take up to 6 months to see real, long lasting results. Don't give up.

CaliforniaDream

Mellor wrote: »

OP is working off 2600-2700 maintenance

I've no idea how accurate Fitbits are. But I know that the post is wrong, involving exercise in particular. Does the fitbit know you are female? As that could account for some extra calories.

An online calculator (here, here or here [metric]) puts your BMR at around 1583. Times 1.2 for sedentary daily calories, is 1900. Then you should average your exercise over the week to give you an average energy burn. It's probably less than you think. Either estimate the figures, or maybe you can use fitbit data.

7 hours a week, maybe 400 calories an hour. Which is only an extra 300 cals over what you'd burn sitting out the sofa. Which puts your maintenance at around 2200.
2600 per day requires almost 5000 calories burned a week via exercise. I doubt you are close to that tbh.

Thanks for the reply. I don't know how accurate Fitbits are either but it seems to be giving me similar figures to what other sites estimate too. It does know I'm female.
I have checked various websites to work out my daily expenditure. I got the 1,583 BMR as you did.
However, I'm multiplying that by 1.4 to give me 2,200 maintenance before I calculate my exercise on top of that.
I don't sit for my job (massage therapist) and doing that 5 days a week puts me higher than a sedentary lifestyle. Unless I'm wrong on that part and that's causing me to overestimate.
Adding my exercise on top of that would put me at my original estimate of 2,400-2,600 calories per day. Would I be wrong in getting that figure?

I definitely appreciate everyone chiming in and helping me out. Every post is a learning curve for me.

Mellor

It's very hard to know which group to choose. But it is more common for people to overestimate, than underestimate. Especially if they use their weekly gym to justify "active" then add individual gym sessions on top.

Massage therapist is definitely more active than a complete desk job, but it's a lot less active than say a courier or labourer. It's hard to know where each job sits on the 1.2-1.8 scale. I'd guess you are somewhere above 2200, but below 2600.
Just aim for a consistent deficit and you'll be fine.

Slydice

Mellor wrote: »

OP is working off 2600-2700 maintenance

No. OP is including exercise and saying total burn (including maintence) of 2400-2600:

CaliforniaDream wrote: »

burn about 2,400-2,600 per day.

We might be crossing streams here cos I work off maintenence as not including exercise. A quick google gets me these folks saying the same as how I think of it:
http://www.livestrong.com/article/78507-calculate-maintenance-calories/

The term "maintenance calories" refers to the number of calories you need to take in each day to optimize body functions and to remain at your current weight

You reckon 1900 maintenence, seems fine to me (cos I ballpark 2000 for most people)
OP says 2 hour hike so I quickly google and first result gives ballpark 400 per hour. So 1900+800 = 2700 seems fine.

I know 30 mins cycle can get me almost 400. So 800 from 2 hour hiking sounds right.

I think we're in agreement though that OP just needs to double check the info they are working from. My suggestions include double checking how they are measuring calories coming in and double check how they measure the calories going out.

CaliforniaDream

It seems that I may well be over estimating my calories out. I genuinely thought they were what I originally said. I'm going to base it off 2,000 maintenance calories per day. If I am for calories in of 1,500 per day that should give me a 1lb loss per week. Then whatever my exercise routine burns should see an additional loss on the scale.
Would you both agree with taking this path?

Also, I'm pretty sure my calories in are correct. I used two different sites to track this weekend and they were within 15 calories of each other per day. Also, most of what I eat is based off the nutrition label on the packaging so I can only assume that is correct. Generally, the only things I estimate calories on are my vegetables.
So I really don't think I'm consuming more than I think especially since I don't have calories from drinks coming in that I'm forgetting or anything.

pwurple

OP, i am your height, female, and was your weight the last time I went losing weight. I had very similar diet, but probably not as much excercise.

I found it came off around half the expected rate... monthly cycles really messed up the scales for me. First half of cycle, weight dropped as i would expect. Doing the same thing for second two weeks, no budge or a slight rise. I think it's due to hormones.

Just have to stick with it I think, and try not put on anything for those second two weeks. Very annoying, but you'll get there, especially with those calories.

CaliforniaDream

pwurple wrote: »

OP, i am your height, female, and was your weight the last time I went losing weight. I had very similar diet, but probably not as much excercise.

I found it came off around half the expected rate... monthly cycles really messed up the scales for me. First half of cycle, weight dropped as i would expect. Doing the same thing for second two weeks, no budge or a slight rise. I think it's due to hormones.

Just have to stick with it I think, and try not put on anything for those second two weeks. Very annoying, but you'll get there, especially with those calories.

Thanks. I know a slow, steady loss is what's best in the long term. I just didn't expect to hit what I thought were plateaus so early considering I have quite a bit of weight to lose.
I'm not going to give up even if the scales stay the same for weeks. It's a process but it would have been nice to be a size or two smaller by summer. I'm not sure that will happen at this rate but I'll focus on realising I'm healthier and fitter and my body will catch up eventually.
I'll track cycles as well and see if that might be my issue. Thanks again for the encouragement. It really does help as I'm sure you know.

Slydice

CaliforniaDream wrote: »

Then whatever my exercise routine burns should see an additional loss on the scale.

It's likely. It's what I wanted back when I started.

Over time, I've changed to want less belly fat not less weight. Too much weight loss can be unhealthy too. What I want at the moment is the same weight but the less belly fat.

One thing I learned as I lost weight was that I had very little muscle so I started getting really skinny. It looked odd. Fat leaves the arms and legs before the belly

Anyway, exercises started putting on muscle in places so that started helping. Thing is though that muscle is heavier than fat so it adds to weight... but doesn't look like fat if ya get me.

I use BMI calculators to get a ballpark of how I'm doing. Search 'bmi calculator' on google. No harm trying a few just to be sure, Here's one I used recently: http://www.safefood.eu/Healthy-Eating/Weight-Loss/BMI-calculator.aspx

BMI isn't the be all and end all but it'll let ya know if ye're getting close to what is considered a danger zone of underweight or overweight I think.

Mellor

Slydice wrote: »

No. OP is including exercise and saying total burn (including maintence) of 2400-2600:

Maintenance is the total energy burn, by definition. Not the base figure you have before you add exercise. If you exercise everyday, you have a higher maintenance calorie value than somebody who does no exercise.

We might be crossing streams here cos I work off maintenence as not including exercise.
A quick google gets me these folks saying the same as how I think of it:
http://www.livestrong.com/article/78507-calculate-maintenance-calories/

Not including exercise is incorrect. That link you posted isn't saying it the same as you either.

refers to the number of calories you need to take in each day to remain at your current weight

If you take the "pre-exericse" calories, you won't remain at your current weight. To remain at your current weight you have take in your total energy burn, including exercise, which is maintenance.

I'm not sure if there's a proper name for the base exercise you are describing, it's basically BMR + NEAT though

You reckon 1900 maintenence, seems fine to me (cos I ballpark 2000 for most people)
OP says 2 hour hike so I quickly google and first result gives ballpark 400 per hour. So 1900+800 = 2700 seems fine.

I know 30 mins cycle can get me almost 400. So 800 from 2 hour hiking sounds right.

You are making the error here that I refereed to above. 1 hours hiking is probably 400 cals. But not going hiking for that hour burns 100 cals any. So the extra burn (that we should add on) is only 300. This is a really common error and one that isn't mentioned enough.
Also, you added the 800 cals to the daily total, unless they are hiking everyday thats a massive overestimation. Instead the weekly exercise cals should be divided by 7. Which is +170 a day from hiking, and +130 a day from kickboxing.*


*Some diet protocols aim to eat more on training days, less on rest day at values closer to each days amount. But that's usually a more athletic approach than general weight loss.

Slydice

I stand corrected. I read now that Maintenence Calories is only: Maintaining Your Current Weight URL="http://www.acaloriecounter.com/diet/calorie-maintenance-calculator-daily-calorie-requirements/"]First Google Result Found[/URL.

For me, a new simple rule of thumb for this is more exercise can still result in Maintenence Calories with addition of more food. My understanding of calories in vs calories out hasn't changed. Just where Maintenence Calories fits. Thanks!

thattequilagirl

Start doing other measurements. Maybe you're gaining muscle? Measure your belly in inches and your thighs, and do it again in two weeks. Try on a dress or new jeans that were tight not so long ago. Take progress pics every week. Notice non-weight loss benefits - is your skin better? Do you have more energy?

8lbs in 6 weeks isn't bad! Especially if you're in it for the long haul. F you repeated that over the next 6 weeks you'd be down more than a stone.

carrollisa

Hi hopefully this will help ,
1.you are on waaaaay too little calories for the amount of exercise you are doing, I know you said a deficit is a deficit but the body is amazing and adapts to these changes, essentially its gone into starvation mode and trys to store energy and not burn it, I work out 5 days a week, 5 weight sessions and 1 cardio (female too ) and I am on 2,300 calories but again I said the body adapts and macros are always changing, a few weeks ago I was on 1800 calories but my metobolism slowed down a lot and weight was starting to slow down , I don't focus on scales either as I'm in good shape but my future focus would be competing so progress pictures and taking measurements work best .
Scales are so inaccurate as muscle weighs more than fat and also if you are a lot of salt or even water weight.
2.you need waaaay more protein, keeps you full and builds muscle, muscle burns fat, and you need to up your carbs or fat well both as calories need to increase but one will be higher than the other , some people react better to carbs some react better to fat , I react better to carbs and would have nearly 200g protein a day.
3. You do a lot of cardio, you should base your training on resistance training and implement cardio as needed, a lot of women are scared of weights as they think we will get manly , we do not have enough testorone to get as shredded as men ... Naturally haha so maybe switch 3 of those sessions for weights .
4.are you getting enough fibre ? Didn't read food in detail and I'm half way through writing this 😂 but if you don't have enough, no bowel movements means no weight loss, maybe add some extra green beans to your dinner and water intake is vital to flush out everything, I aim for 3 litres a day . Pee all the time !
5.You might think of getting an online coach , nutrition wise anyway , until you know your body that you are confident enough to do it yourself and learn how your body responds to carbs/fats etc

ameliams

I am no expert at all when it comes to nutrition or fitness but I'm really shocked by the amount of people claiming muscle weighs more than fat.

Alf Veedersane

ameliams wrote: »

I am no expert at all when it comes to nutrition or fitness but I'm really shocked by the amount of people claiming muscle weighs more than fat.

It's more dense than fat. It's usually just phrased badly.

ameliams

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

ameliams wrote: »

I am no expert at all when it comes to nutrition or fitness but I'm really shocked by the amount of people claiming muscle weighs more than fat.

It's more dense than fat. It's usually just phrased badly.

I know but still it's like saying a bag of apples weighs more than a bag of oranges.

Slydice

Thanks folks. Dense sounds like the correct term to use.

Found these two articles after a quick google search:
http://www.livestrong.com/article/438693-a-pound-of-fat-vs-a-pound-of-muscle/
http://bamboocorefitness.com/one-pound-of-fat-versus-one-pound-of-muscle-clearing-up-the-misconception/
They use phrases like "take up less space in the body" and "it takes up less space than fat" to describe Muscle.

Sounds like it may be better for me to try and share how muscle works by talking about the space in the body that Muscle occupies.

Mellor

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

It's more dense than fat. It's usually just phrased badly.

Sometime its phrased badly, and its obvious what people mean. Swapping muscle for fat over a longer period will see look better at the same weight.

Other times it's an excuse why the scales haven't moved these week. "Scales haven't moved, probably built heavy muscle

thattequilagirl

Mellor wrote: »

Sometime its phrased badly, and its obvious what people mean. Swapping muscle for fat over a longer period will see look better at the same weight.

Other times it's an excuse why the scales haven't moved these week. "Scales haven't moved, probably built heavy muscle

What I meant is that if she lost a pound of fat and gained a pound of muscle, the scales would stay the same. And based on the amount of exercise she's doing, I'd imagine she's gaining muscle.

Alf Veedersane

thattequilagirl wrote: »

And based on the amount of exercise she's doing, I'd imagine she's gaining muscle.

Hiking, kickboxing and yoga aren't big muscle builders.

Macy0161

Can only talk from my own experience - I worked out a food deficit of 500 using the formula that is one of the stickies, without taking into account exercise. That should give you 1lb a week. Then I tried to burn at least 500 cals extra on top - so if my garmin said I burned 1000, I'd give myself an extra 500 for food, on the logic even if it wasn't accurate I would still be in deficit.

I've no idea about fitbits accuracy, but my experience of testing mapmywalk v strava v googlefit apps is that they all give a different calorie burn with the same input! For running and cycling I use a garmin with HRM, and strava (which is based purely on the GPS upload from what I can work out) tends to give at least 10% higher burn than the one based on heart rate for outdoor exercise (and way lower for my turbo sessions where its going on the distance from the speed sensor rather than effort). I guess what I am trying to get at is that don't trust activity trackers up to the full amount.

Also, some of the activity they track is probably already taken into account in the maintenance calculation I'd have thought? I select "Mainly Seated" as my multiplier, but that must have to take into account some walking/ steps. Google Fit adds in my walk from the car park in work, walk to the coffee shop etc, which I assume would be an activity level that would be taken into account for the maintenance calorie calculation. If you are using an activity tracker measuring every step, should you really be using a multiplier at all? That's a genuine question, not a rhetorical one!

Mellor

thattequilagirl wrote: »

What I meant is that if she lost a pound of fat and gained a pound of muscle, the scales would stay the same. And based on the amount of exercise she's doing, I'd imagine she's gaining muscle.

You also pointed out that she hasn't got testosterone like a man, to build muscle. And claimed she's probably in "starvation mode".
But despite the above, you're suggesting there's also muscle being built while on a large deficit, by hiking and cardio?

Not gonna happen imo.
The OP has lost 8lbs in 6 or 7 weeks. That's a perfectly fine rate of loss. Non-linear numbers on the scales are easily explained by changes in hydration. It'll keep going down if she maintains what sheiks doing.

I agree with the adding resistance training suggestion.

thattequilagirl

Mellor wrote: »

You also pointed out that she hasn't got testosterone like a man, to build muscle. And claimed she's probably in "starvation mode".
But despite the above, you're suggesting there's also muscle being built while on a large deficit, by hiking and cardio?

Not gonna happen imo.
The OP has lost 8lbs in 6 or 7 weeks. That's a perfectly fine rate of loss. Non-linear numbers on the scales are easily explained by changes in hydration. It'll keep going down if she maintains what sheiks doing.

I agree with the adding resistance training suggestion.

I didn't say anything about starvation mode or testosterone.

Looks like you're mixing up posters!

CaliforniaDream

Again, thank you everyone for the replies.
I've adjusted things slightly so I'll keep going and see where I'm at in another 6 weeks.

I have taken photos and measurements as well so I'm tracking in more ways than the scale. Looking at things it was probably me just being impatient and expecting results quicker. I'll post here again in a few weeks if I remember to update people on progress, taking into account the good advice I received here.

Also, final thing about the Fitbit. It only counts activity when it's done consistently over a 10+ minute period. So it's not double counting things like walking to the car or anything. I never said it was 100% accurate or that I was living for the exact calories it shows. Like all other things, it's a base estimate I use in conjunction with other measures.

Mellor

thattequilagirl wrote: »

I didn't say anything about starvation mode or testosterone.

Looks like you're mixing up posters!

You right sorry. I was talking about the poster who mentioned testosterone, starvation and building muscle concurrently.

Regardless as to who said it though, the point stands building muscle on a 1000cal deficit isn't happening. If it where that easy we'd all look like cover models.

CaliforniaDream wrote: »

Looking at things it was probably me just being impatient and expecting results quicker.

It was 100% this imo. Give it 2 months and you'll be below 170 I'd bet.

carrollisa

Mellor wrote: »

You right sorry. I was talking about the poster who mentioned testosterone, starvation and building muscle concurrently.

Regardless as to who said it though, the point stands building muscle on a 1000cal deficit isn't happening. If it where that easy we'd all look like cover models.



It was 100% this imo. Give it 2 months and you'll be below 170 I'd bet.

I also said she needed to up her calories .....?

And I think it's clear what I meant for fat weighs more ?? I'm not going to get technical into what every single thing means... People understand this easy ....

I do this myself , plan is to compete in the future .... I think I know what I'm doing .

Op just a tip:) if you're increasing calories don't just go BOOM and slap on 800 extra, slowly introduce them each week as your metabolism will not have adjusted.

Irishcrx

Muscle weighs more than fat , you aren't building muscle on a calorie deficet like that or with them work outs.

That's it really, keep doing what your doing and tracking and it will come down.

Irish_rat

OP you're doing really well, just don't go too mad on the calorie burning as it can be hard trying to regain the minimum daily requirement for a body to function.

Losing 1000 cals a day through exercise is a lot you're talking the equivalent of about 10 miles of running each day. I pack in a lot of food on days I run that amount.

On non workout days you can eat lower cals but pack plenty of protein for recovery. Also bear in mind you're still losing weight when the body is repairing muscle.

Keep up the good work! Your food plan is really good btw.

ameliams

Did everyone in school not get asked that trick question, which weighs more a kilo of feathers or a kilo of bricks?

A kilo of muscle weighs the same as a kilo of fat. A kilo of muscle will be more compact than a kilo of fat but it still weighs the same.

Alf Veedersane

ameliams wrote: »

Did everyone in school not get asked that trick question, which weighs more a kilo of feathers or a kilo of bricks?

A kilo of muscle weighs the same as a kilo of fat. A kilo of muscle will be more compact than a kilo of fat but it still weighs the same.

Thought that dance was over.

thattequilagirl

ameliams wrote: »

Did everyone in school not get asked that trick question, which weighs more a kilo of feathers or a kilo of bricks?

A kilo of muscle weighs the same as a kilo of fat. A kilo of muscle will be more compact than a kilo of fat but it still weighs the same.

I think everyone has got it. It's just a badly phrased way of saying "you may have lost body fat even though the scales haven't moved"

Irish_rat

carrollisa wrote: »

You do a lot of cardio, you should base your training on resistance training and implement cardio as needed

Why? I think the OP should continue to enjoy what she does. Personally I can't stand resistance training. Everyone is different

ameliams

thattequilagirl wrote: »

ameliams wrote: »

Did everyone in school not get asked that trick question, which weighs more a kilo of feathers or a kilo of bricks?

A kilo of muscle weighs the same as a kilo of fat. A kilo of muscle will be more compact than a kilo of fat but it still weighs the same.

I think everyone has got it. It's just a badly phrased way of saying "you may have lost body fat even though the scales haven't moved"

It might be badly phrased but it's still wrong.

I keep seeing nutritionists, diets clubs and gyms advertising with the tag line "muscle weighs more than fat" The phrase is wrong regardless of the meaning behind it.
Muscle does not weigh more than fat.
It's common sense and regardless of 'bad phrasing' it should absolutely be pointed out that it's wrong.
And this is not from a fitness/nutritionql perspective. It's just a bit of cop on.

The muscle vs fat battle arguement just provides diet clubs with a reason to keep people coming back. The phrase is wrong.
So try and force people to correct themselves, grammar and structure of sentence forms many peoples way of thinking .

Mellor

ameliams wrote: »

It might be badly phrased but it's still wrong.

I keep seeing nutritionists, diets clubs and gyms advertising with the tag line "muscle weighs more than fat" The phrase is wrong regardless of the meaning behind it.
Muscle does not weigh more than fat.
It's common sense and regardless of 'bad phrasing' it should absolutely be pointed out that it's wrong.
And this is not from a fitness/nutritionql perspective. It's just a bit of cop on.

The muscle vs fat battle arguement just provides diet clubs with a reason to keep people coming back. The phrase is wrong.
So try and force people to correct themselves, grammar and structure of sentence forms many peoples way of thinking .

You are being unnecessarily pedantic tbh.
Nobody, that I've seen, has ever said a kilo of muscle is heavier than a kilo of fat. The only reason the feathers or bricks joke works is because it mentions the quantity specifically.

If somebody asked "what's heavier, water or oil?" What would you say?

Any normal person would say, water is heavier because oil floats on top. Are you suggesting that the correct reply is; "A kilo of water weighs the same as a kilo of oil".
Despite the fact it's true statement (obviously they are equal), somebody who replied like that is being a spastic, imo. It's generally understood that "weighs more", without reference to mass, refers to density.

Also, the pedantry above is not even technically correct. A kilo of muscle isn’t always weight as kilo of fat (or bricks, or feathers). The kilo is a unit of mass, it’s not actually a unit of weight (did you not learn that in school?). Weight refers to force, and the force of an object, even a uniform kilo, varies with location. It’s simply a case that in everyday english, we accept what people mean when they say “weight”.
If you are going to be pedantic and highlight the mistake when they use “heavier” instead of “denser”. Why stop there? Why not correct people every time they mention a “weight”, when they should be saying “mass”.

Mellor

carrollisa wrote: »

And I think it's clear what I meant for fat weighs more ?? I'm not going to get technical into what every single thing means... People understand this easy .

I didn't mind the fact you said muscle weighs more. I knew what you refereed to, as any everyone did.

I was talking about the fact you suggested she built muscle, while in starvation mode, with low testosterone, on a 1000 calorie deficit.
It's a total contradiction, and simply not going to happen.

I do this myself , plan is to compete in the future .... I think I know what I'm doing

It's good that you know you what is working for you. But the fact you plan on competing doesn't mean what you said is realistic. That kind of stuff gets regurgitated all the time by would be competitors in the gym. Most don't know what they are talking about.

ameliams

Interesting. Maybe I am being pedantic. Doesn't mean I'm wrong though.
Plenty of people are using the phrase in the way I suggest. And by not correcting them it just spreads more stupidity. Because it is suggesting the excuse that when you dont lose weight it's because you're gaining muscle. Which for most people is not true.
I was once at a slimming club where the group leader, when people didn't lose at group, would tell people that it was because muscle weighed more than fat and they obviously needed to cut back on the walking if they were going to lose anything.

It's funny really, this forum in particular jumps at people for being in any way uneducated about nutrition but me stating a fact is being pedantic. But sure we'll just say I'm wrong and call it a day.

Alf Veedersane

The difference to the example is that most people here understand what's being said and it has been corrected already and the suggestion that muscle gain is offsetting weight loss has been put to bed.

ezra_pound

ameliams wrote: »

Interesting. Maybe I am being pedantic. Doesn't mean I'm wrong though.
Plenty of people are using the phrase in the way I suggest. And by not correcting them it just spreads more stupidity. Because it is suggesting the excuse that when you dont lose weight it's because you're gaining muscle. Which for most people is not true.
I was once at a slimming club where the group leader, when people didn't lose at group, would tell people that it was because muscle weighed more than fat and they obviously needed to cut back on the walking if they were going to lose anything.

It's funny really, this forum in particular jumps at people for being in any way uneducated about nutrition but me stating a fact is being pedantic. But sure we'll just say I'm wrong and call it a day.

A litre of muscle weighs more than a litre of fat. Right?
So muscle must weigh more than fat. Surely?

Alf Veedersane

ezra_pound wrote: »

A litre of muscle weighs more than a litre of fat. Right?
So muscle must weigh more than fat. Surely?

No. Muscle is more dense than fat. If the volumes are the same, muscle will be heavier.