What am I doing wrong!

Xxhaylsxx · 30-01-2014 10:39AM #1

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 · 30-01-2014 10:42AM

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 · 30-01-2014 10:43AM

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 · 30-01-2014 10:46AM

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 · 30-01-2014 11:15AM

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 · 30-01-2014 11:27AM

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

thegreatiam · 30-01-2014 11:33AM

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

runawaybishop · 30-01-2014 11:36AM

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 · 30-01-2014 11:40AM

thegreatiam wrote: »

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

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

thegreatiam · 30-01-2014 11:50AM

Xxhaylsxx wrote: »

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

how did you come to 24%?

Xxhaylsxx · 30-01-2014 11:56AM

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 · 30-01-2014 11:57AM

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 · 30-01-2014 11:58AM

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 · 30-01-2014 12:09PM

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 · 30-01-2014 12:17PM

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. · 30-01-2014 01:02PM

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

More cardio if you want to lose weight

runawaybishop · 30-01-2014 01:04PM

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 · 30-01-2014 01:29PM

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 · 30-01-2014 01:39PM

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 · 30-01-2014 01:42PM

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 · 30-01-2014 01:50PM

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 · 30-01-2014 03:15PM

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 · 30-01-2014 03:17PM

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 · 30-01-2014 03:21PM

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

runawaybishop · 30-01-2014 03:22PM

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 · 30-01-2014 03:42PM

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 · 30-01-2014 03:56PM

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 · 30-01-2014 04:08PM

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 · 30-01-2014 04:12PM

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? · 30-01-2014 04:21PM

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 · 30-01-2014 04:32PM

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. . .

What am I doing wrong!

Comments