nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Why did I not lose weight

Highroad12

Hi, not sure if anyone will be able to answer but I spent the week eating no more than 1300 calories each day and I also walked around 5k each day yet at weigh in I only lost a pound ðŸ˜ðŸ˜ðŸ˜ Surely I should have lost more?

I'm 5'2 and 14stone 12.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Cill94

jim o doom wrote: »

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

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

Fasting reduces insulin resistance, and increases insulin sensitivity.

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

All diets are caloric reduction diets.

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

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

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

extra gravy

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

GreeBo

Mellor wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

and healthy.

jim o doom

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Same for keto, low carb, paleo, etc

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fasting reduces insulin resistance, and increases insulin sensitivity.

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

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

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

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

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

bucketybuck

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

Mellor

GreeBo wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GreeBo

Mellor wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mellor

GreeBo wrote: »

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

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

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

GreeBo

Mellor wrote: »

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

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

Mellor

Minime2.5 wrote: »

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

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

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

SusieBlue wrote: »

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

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

Minime2.5

Highroad12 wrote: »

Hi, not sure if anyone will be able to answer but I spent the week eating no more than 1300 calories each day and I also walked around 5k each day yet at weigh in I only lost a pound ðŸ˜ðŸ˜ðŸ˜ Surely I should have lost more?

I'm 5'2 and 14stone 12.

post up what you typically eat in a day

Also are you weight training

Minime2.5

Also I wouldn't knock walking either .

Because walking is low intensity you can do as much as you have time for without it interfering in recovery

Also because its low intensity it does not have a compensatory affect on appetite

A person has a limited ability to recover from intense exercise so a person should max out that capacity with weight training not intense cardio

SusieBlue

Minime2.5 wrote: »

This women is 5ft 2 at 14 stone 12lbs a healthy lean weight for a fit female at this height is 7 to 8 stone . She has a massive stock pile of energy to be liberated . If she was only 1 or 2 stone overweight Id recommend a less aggressive plan. Report me all you like put your only succumbing to your own ignorance . Aggressive dieting has its place when the person its very overweight. Do some research . Google the theory of fat availability or start here

http://www.dombrownefitness.com/nutrition-articles/the-theory-of-fat-availability

Lyle Mcdonald has a program Rapid fatloss and its similar to what I mentioned above ll

Or you could just eat in a deficit, do some exercise and make sensible choices.
Then you won’t have to feel miserable, hungry, exhausted or fatigued and end up inevitably feeling frustrated and disappointed when you can’t sustain that kind of deprivation.
No need for such a aggressive approach at all.

Minime2.5

This women is 5ft 2 at 14 stone 12lbs a healthy lean weight for a fit female at this height is 7 to 8 stone . She has a massive stock pile of energy to be liberated . If she was only 1 or 2 stone overweight Id recommend a less aggressive plan. Report me all you like put your only succumbing to your own ignorance . Aggressive dieting has its place when the person its very overweight. Do some research . Google the theory of fat availability or start here

http://www.dombrownefitness.com/nutrition-articles/the-theory-of-fat-availability

Lyle Mcdonald has a program Rapid fatloss and its similar to what I mentioned above ll

jam_mac_jam

Minime2.5 wrote: »

starvation cant happen until until your already very lean so you dont know what it is you only think you do

I'm not arguing about this stupidity and reporting your posts.

SusieBlue

Minime2.5 wrote: »

starvation cant happen until until your already very lean so you dont know what it is you only think you do

Its not a healthy, practical or sustainable way to lose weight. Its also potentially dangerous.
Its really bad advice that I hope no one has taken any heed of.

Minime2.5

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I know what it means thanks and it will happen on a 500 calorie diet.

This is eating disorder stuff.

starvation cant happen until until your already very lean so you dont know what it is you only think you do

Macy0161

If we're doing recommendations, Scott Baptie/ foodforfitness.co.uk is very good.

His book "how to lose weight and never find it again" is excellent. His recipe ebooks are brilliant - pretty much all the family favourites come from them at this stage! I only discovered him late on during my weight loss phase, through the recipes, but wish I'd found him earlier. Fully qualified, science based.

If you want to get more in depth, the sigma nutrition podcast is very good, but probably more aimed at people with an interest.

sleepysue

You need to be in a calorie deficit to lose fat. There are many ways of creating a calorie deficit such as eating less, increasing exercise, moving more in general ( take the stairs, get off the bus a stop earlier), IF and 10K steps a day. It is also important to ensure you eat enough protein. Aim for about 1.5g of protein for every 1kg you weigh. This will help keep you fuller for longer. Weighing yourself is not always the best way to judge your progress. Your weight will fluctuate throughout the month. Take measurements every 6 weeks and photos. You could see very little difference on the scales but your clothes may feel looser. I also highly recommend Not a Diet book by James Smith ( follow him on Instagram)

jam_mac_jam

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

A lot of people posting links to books etc.
for what its worth, I've found this article to be the most concise and well researched, and its presented in a very easy to follow format. (there is a seperate one with plenty humor and swearing, if thats your thing.)

https://physiqonomics.com/the-best-fat-loss-article-child-friendly-version/

That's brilliant

jam_mac_jam

Minime2.5 wrote: »

most people dont even know what the word starvation means. Starvation isnt being hungry or eating very little food. Starvation is muscle wasting or when the body starts to eat itself . This can NOT happen if you have plenty of body fat on your body to be utilised . A person should also be weight training 3 times a week

I know what it means thanks and it will happen on a 500 calorie diet.

This is eating disorder stuff.

GreeBo

Minime2.5 wrote: »

id be interested in hearing your reasoning for asking this question

Maybe they were already eating 1300 or fewer and just didnt realise.
This new diet might not be a deficit at all.

Brian?

Minime2.5 wrote: »

being female and only 5ft 2 means 1300 cals for you may be in fact too high

try eating 500 calories for 1 week in one meal a day and report back

you wont die

a typical meal

could be a 450g bag of mixed veg
1x10oz steak or salmon

will will be stuffed after it

That’s terrible advice.

SusieBlue

Minime2.5 wrote: »

being female and only 5ft 2 means 1300 cals for you may be in fact too high

try eating 500 calories for 1 week in one meal a day and report back

you wont die

a typical meal

could be a 450g bag of mixed veg
1x10oz steak or salmon

will will be stuffed after it

"You won't die" is a very low standard to set the bar. The diet needs to be realistic and sustainable for it to work long term.
Eating one 500 calorie meal is way too low and potentially dangerous if OP has a job or a family to look after. Its a reckless short term option that she won't be able to stick to.
I would be absolutely miserable and unable to function like a normal person on one meal a day with such low calories.

Minime2.5 wrote: »

id be interested in hearing your reasoning for asking this question

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

Minime2.5

GreeBo wrote: »

How many calories were you eating before you switched to 1300/day?

id be interested in hearing your reasoning for asking this question

GreeBo

Highroad12 wrote: »

Hi, not sure if anyone will be able to answer but I spent the week eating no more than 1300 calories each day and I also walked around 5k each day yet at weigh in I only lost a pound &#55357;&#56877;&#55357;&#56877;&#55357;&#56877; Surely I should have lost more?

I'm 5'2 and 14stone 12.

How many calories were you eating before you switched to 1300/day?

Minime2.5

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

500 a day or per meal. 500 calories is a starvation diet.

I am 5 foot 2 and would lose weight on 1000- 1300.

500 a day would not be advisable.

I would advise the original poster to keep at it and possibly drop down to 100 if they are still not losing weight.

most people dont even know what the word starvation means. Starvation isnt being hungry or eating very little food. Starvation is muscle wasting or when the body starts to eat itself . This can NOT happen if you have plenty of body fat on your body to be utilised . A person should also be weight training 3 times a week

jam_mac_jam

Minime2.5 wrote: »

being female and only 5ft 2 means 1300 cals for you may be in fact too high

try eating 500 calories for 1 week in one meal a day and report back

you wont die

a typical meal

could be a 450g bag of mixed veg
1x10oz steak or salmon

will will be stuffed after it

500 a day or per meal. 500 calories is a starvation diet.

I am 5 foot 2 and would lose weight on 1000- 1300.

500 a day would not be advisable.

I would advise the original poster to keep at it and possibly drop down to 100 if they are still not losing weight.

Minime2.5

being female and only 5ft 2 means 1300 cals for you may be in fact too high

try eating 500 calories for 1 week in one meal a day and report back

you wont die

a typical meal

could be a 450g bag of mixed veg
1x10oz steak or salmon

will will be stuffed after it

Minime2.5

santana75 wrote: »

First thing, dont count calories. Its not an accurate way to monitor your intake. Its about the composition of what you eat, not the calories. Best thing is to eat a natural diet. I promise if you do this, weight will fall off you without any type of caloric restrictions. Stay away from processed food, make meals for yourself that are composed of foods that have nothing added to them. Go by that guide, not the calorie value thats on the back of processed foods, those values are misleading.

Even if the food choice is healthy you wont lose weight unless your in a calorie deficet