Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why did I not lose weight

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Alf Veedersane
    Registered Users Posts: 24,557 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    jim o doom wrote: »
    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.

    That doesn't really prove anything other than it's not sustainable for you or the people you know.
    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.

    Anything that causes you to lose weight is because you've reduced your caloric intake. Fasting included.


  • Options
    #63
    Zzzz11whsqo
    Registered Users Posts: 4 ✭Zzzz11whsqo


    Are you taking waist, thigh, arm, chest etc. measurements? You have to adjust your expectations and realise that it won't happen over the course of a week. Be patient with it, do something that'll be sustainable in the long term!


  • Options
    #64
    Stone Deaf 4evr
    Registered Users Posts: 7,994 ✭✭✭Stone Deaf 4evr


    extra gravy wrote: »
    I find myfitnesspal very good, have lost 10 lbs since Christmas using it.

    100% - this app and a proper food scale wont be long helping to educate you on how much calories are in a particular product. - particularly for stuff like breakfast cereals, where 25g hardly covers the arse of the bowl.

    Also - when cooking, its important to count the oils used in cooking, as these are tremendously calorie dense.


  • Options
    #65
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,088 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    bucketybuck wrote: »
    Its inane to keep insisting that the actual previous intake isn't relevant here. Of course it is.
    It’s relevant to why they gained weight.
    I’d live to hear your reason fir why it affects weight loss from this point.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    It explains to the OP why 1300 is "only" losing them 1lb a week. Thats it, nothing else.
    But as I keep saying, that’s their tdee not their intake. focusing on previous intake sends the wrong message imo

    If somebody eating a 1000 surplus, reduced by 1000 cal. They might mistakenly expect weight loss. TDEE is better to focus on
    Really only trying to help the OP understand whats happening tbh.
    I know. Same here.


  • Options
    #66
    brick tamland
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭brick tamland


    A lot of mad opinions here.

    Only one week down OP. Keep at it. Ensure you hitting your calories correctly and keep at the walking. Weight will come off if you keep doing the right things. Dont get youlself down

    No need to lower calories, change eating habits or weight lifting just yet.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,084 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Mellor wrote: »
    But as I keep saying, that’s their tdee not their intake. focusing on previous intake sends the wrong message imo

    But their TDEE and intake are the two parameters into the function of any weight loss/gain.


    Previous intake coupled with previous TDEE gave a surplus or deficit and corresponding gain or loss.
    Current intake with current TDEE is resulting in a loss of 1lb per week.

    For me at least, to explain this to the OP we need to know whats changed in both TDEE and intake.

    If we can show that neither have really changed, or have both changed but the difference between them hasnt really changed, then I believe we can better explain to the OP why they are "only" losing 1lbs a week.


  • Options
    #68
    Oranage2
    Registered Users Posts: 11,130 ✭✭✭✭Oranage2


    I agree your previous calorie intake is important. Test have been done or biggest losers and it shows the had lower metabolisms then people in their range.

    So if you always ate 1800 and drop down to 1500 calories you won't see much weightloss as 1 pound of fat is 3500 calories so it so it would take 11-12 days before you lost a pound.


  • Options
    #69
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,084 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Oranage2 wrote: »
    I agree your previous calorie intake is important. Test have been done or biggest losers and it shows the had lower metabolisms then people in their range.

    So if you always ate 1800 and drop down to 1500 calories you won't see much weightloss as 1 pound of fat is 3500 calories so it so it would take 11-12 days before you lost a pound.

    Its only important in understanding what changes are/are not happening.

    Your weight loss is always tied to intake vs TDEE.
    Your previous intake has no bearing on this.


  • Options
    #70
    Macy0161
    Registered Users Posts: 9,289 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    I wouldn't really agree that previous intake is important. TDEE is the important figure. If the deficit was correct to give weight loss, than that's to do with the TDEE figure/ actual, not the previous eating.

    I can only speak for my own experience, but using TDEE and tracking, I lost expected weight. I recalculated TDEE each week to ensure the deficit. fwiw I aimed for 500 calories from food, and 500 from exercise. I'd go % based on the intake side if I was doing it again though (particularly once "exercise" became "training".)

    TDEE could be wrong by over estimating activity level, but I would suggest that calorie counting normally falls down on accuracy of recording.


  • Options
    #71
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,088 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    GreeBo wrote: »
    But their TDEE and intake are the two parameters into the function of any weight loss/gain.
    Yes. Current intake and current TDEE.
    For me at least, to explain this to the OP we need to know whats changed in both TDEE and intake.
    And that’s precisely where you are going wrong.
    The weight loss is a product of Current TDEE - current intake. The change from previous to current is not a factor. Big change or small change does not explain or contribute to why it’s only a 1lb loss.
    Weight loss is decided by deficit. Imo highlighting “change” as relevant only feeds into the misconceptions people having.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Oranage2
    Registered Users Posts: 11,130 ✭✭✭✭Oranage2


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Its only important in understanding what changes are/are not happening.

    Your weight loss is always tied to intake vs TDEE.
    Your previous intake has no bearing on this.

    Yes i agree, but if no weight loss is happening after a few weeks and the person is sure their calories are correct, then it's important to look at.


  • Options
    #73
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,084 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Mellor wrote: »
    Yes. Current intake and current TDEE.


    And that’s precisely where you are going wrong.
    The weight loss is a product of Current TDEE - current intake. The change from previous to current is not a factor. Big change or small change does not explain or contribute to why it’s only a 1lb loss.
    Weight loss is decided by deficit. Imo highlighting “change” as relevant only feeds into the misconceptions people having.

    I'm not at all trying to say previous intake or tdee are a factor, not at all!

    I'm saying the difference between current and previous will help explain to the op why they are not seeing the radical transformation they expected.

    The op clearly feels that 1300 intake is a big difference so they should see a big change. If they were previously, unknowingly on 1350 then it won't.

    You are either misreading or misinterpreting my posts if you think I am in any way saying that past performance impacts current performance.


  • Options
    #74
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,084 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Oranage2 wrote: »
    Yes i agree, but if no weight loss is happening after a few weeks and the person is sure their calories are correct, then it's important to look at.

    No, if no weight loss is happening it means current intake and current tdee are wrong. The past is irrelevant.


  • Options
    #75
    jim o doom
    Registered Users Posts: 1,474 ✭✭✭jim o doom


    Cill94 wrote: »
    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.

    As I've explained already, it does not just create a deficit. Your body is literally producing glucagon instead of insulin, that does not happen on a "mild caloric deficit", that only happens with fasting.

    They've recently used fasting based diets to cure people of Type 2 Diabetese, and type 2 diabetics are generally overweight, correct? So they both lose weight, and cure themselves of diabetes with fasting.

    I also suggest just simply giving a it a try, and not rejecting it out of hand like you are doing.

    But feel free to ignore the good science behind it, that it can cure type 2 diabetes and simply respond that mild caloric deficit does the same thing.

    (edit) standard diet based caloric restriction does work for some, but not all. People can try fasting and see how it changes their relationship with food. Rejecting it out of hand without giving it a chance is close minded.

    I'm not saying fasting does not include caloric restriction - of course it does, it's the other bodily adaptations caused by fasting that are the true benefit, in ADDITION to caloric restriction.


  • Options
    #76
    Alf Veedersane
    Registered Users Posts: 24,557 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    jim o doom wrote: »
    (edit) standard diet based caloric restriction does work for some, but not all. People can try fasting and see how it changes their relationship with food. Rejecting it out of hand without giving it a chance is close minded.

    I'm not saying fasting does not include caloric restriction - of course it does

    Thats all anyone is saying in relation to fasting. That it's a means to reduce calories. I haven't seen anyone dismiss it out of hand...just that it's one of a number of ways to reduce calories.

    Fasting wouldn't be my cup of tea but it's yours and that's what matters for you.

    Different ways work for different people.


  • Options
    #77
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,088 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    GreeBo wrote: »
    You are either misreading or misinterpreting my posts if you think I am in any way saying that past performance impacts current performance.
    You keep saying you know it doesn’t affect current weight loss. But then you also say;
    GreeBo wrote: »
    I
    The op clearly feels that 1300 intake is a big difference so they should see a big change. If they were previously, unknowingly on 1350 then it won't..
    If they were previously eating 1350, which is a deficit of about 450, that wouldn’t affect the weight they lose on 1300.
    I very much doubt they were eating 1350 previously.

    You seem to be making a link between previous intake and and TDEE. There isn’t one.
    Feel like this is going in circles, So good luck OP


  • Options
    #78
    jim o doom
    Registered Users Posts: 1,474 ✭✭✭jim o doom


    Alf Veedersane wrote: »
    Thats all anyone is saying in relation to fasting. That it's a means to reduce calories. I haven't seen anyone dismiss it out of hand...just that it's one of a number of ways to reduce calories.

    Fasting wouldn't be my cup of tea but it's yours and that's what matters for you.

    Different ways work for different people.


    I agree it's not for everyone, but there's more to it than simple caloric reduction, and that is scientifically proven.

    Reduced insulin resistance and increased insulin sensitivity - this doesn't happen with standard daily caloric restriction, it only happens with fasting.

    Same for the body producing glucagon and not insulin. These things are not "caloric restriction", instead it's a bodily adaptation and reduction in the harm caused by being in a constantly high caloric state.

    Different strokes for different folks, but don't simply dismiss it as another method of caloric restriction.

    If it was as simple as that, they wouldn't be using fasting to help cure certain people with Type 2 diabetes.


  • Options
    #79
    Macy0161
    Registered Users Posts: 9,289 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    "Scientifically Proven" is a bit more than I've seen. Plenty of research of potential or suggested benefits, which is a bit different to proven.


  • Options
    #80
    Cill94
    Registered Users Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Cill94


    jim o doom wrote: »
    I agree it's not for everyone, but there's more to it than simple caloric reduction, and that is scientifically proven.

    Reduced insulin resistance and increased insulin sensitivity - this doesn't happen with standard daily caloric restriction, it only happens with fasting.

    Same for the body producing glucagon and not insulin. These things are not "caloric restriction", instead it's a bodily adaptation and reduction in the harm caused by being in a constantly high caloric state.

    Different strokes for different folks, but don't simply dismiss it as another method of caloric restriction.

    If it was as simple as that, they wouldn't be using fasting to help cure certain people with Type 2 diabetes.

    The OP is not diabetic as far as I'm aware, so the benefits of fasting you're espousing aren't relevant. It's like coming on here and telling her to do the keto diet because it can be useful for epileptics. The OP could well find fasting works for them, but she's making progress, so why mess with that by trying to get her to completely overhaul her diet?

    This entire thread has devolved into arguing minor details and away from actually helping this person, who probably has no idea what you guys are talking about anymore.


  • Options
    #81
    Zzzz11whsqo
    Registered Users Posts: 4 ✭Zzzz11whsqo


    Cill94 wrote: »
    The OP is not diabetic as far as I'm aware, so the benefits of fasting you're espousing aren't relevant. It's like coming on here and telling her to do the keto diet because it can be useful for epileptics. The OP could well find fasting works for them, but she's making progress, so why mess with that by trying to get her to completely overhaul her diet?

    This entire thread has devolved into arguing minor details and away from actually helping this person, who probably has no idea what you guys are talking about anymore.

    You do realise that insulin plays a very important part in more than just diabetic people, don't you?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Cill94
    Registered Users Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Cill94


    Zzzz11whsqo wrote: »
    You do realise that insulin plays a very important part in more than just diabetic people, don't you?

    Its role in fat loss is entirely overstated and has been refuted by a large number of studies at this point. Hence the lack of difference in weight loss when high and low carb diets are compared when matched for total calories and protein.


  • Options
    #83
    Zzzz11whsqo
    Registered Users Posts: 4 ✭Zzzz11whsqo


    Cill94 wrote: »
    Its role in fat loss is entirely overstated and has been refuted by a large number of studies at this point. Hence the lack of difference in weight loss when high and low carb diets are compared when matched for total calories and protein.

    Its effect as an anabolic hormone can't be understated either, and its impact on muscle-building and therefore on a person's metabolic rate can't be understated when taking all factors around body weight into account.


  • Options
    #84
    Alf Veedersane
    Registered Users Posts: 24,557 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    jim o doom wrote: »
    I agree it's not for everyone, but there's more to it than simple caloric reduction, and that is scientifically proven.

    Reduced insulin resistance and increased insulin sensitivity - this doesn't happen with standard daily caloric restriction, it only happens with fasting.

    Same for the body producing glucagon and not insulin. These things are not "caloric restriction", instead it's a bodily adaptation and reduction in the harm caused by being in a constantly high caloric state.

    Different strokes for different folks, but don't simply dismiss it as another method of caloric restriction.

    If it was as simple as that, they wouldn't be using fasting to help cure certain people with Type 2 diabetes.

    Insulin resistance and insulin sensitivity are also linked to the amount of fat you have. The more fat you have, the higher the blood level of free fatty acids you have and that decreases insulin sensitivity, directly and indirectly.

    Weight loss increases insulin sensitivity primarily because of the reduction in fatty acids.

    The studies that demonstrated that didn't get into the means by which the caloric restriction was achieved.


  • Options
    #85
    Cill94
    Registered Users Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Cill94


    Zzzz11whsqo wrote: »
    Its effect as an anabolic hormone can't be understated either, and its impact on muscle-building and therefore on a person's metabolic rate can't be understated when taking all factors around body weight into account.

    I'm aware of the functions of insulin in muscle building. Whatever muscle building benefits you could potentially reap from the increased insulin sensitivity on a fasting diet are likely completely negated by the fact that you aren't eating for huge chunks of time.

    Nevertheless, this is probably not information that is going to help someone with a BMI of >30. They just need to exercise and eat better.


  • Options
    #86
    El Tarangu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,615 ✭✭✭El Tarangu


    OP must have dropped the rest of the weight since then, as they haven't been back to respond/thank everyone for their advice.


  • Options
    #87
    Macy0161
    Registered Users Posts: 9,289 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    El Tarangu wrote: »
    OP must have dropped the rest of the weight since then, as they haven't been back to respond/thank everyone for their advice.
    Wading through the amount of bs probably drove them out for a run!


  • Options
    #88
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,084 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Mellor wrote: »
    You keep saying you know it doesn’t affect current weight loss. But then you also say;


    If they were previously eating 1350, which is a deficit of about 450, that wouldn’t affect the weight they lose on 1300.
    I very much doubt they were eating 1350 previously.

    You seem to be making a link between previous intake and and TDEE. There isn’t one.
    Feel like this is going in circles, So good luck OP

    You are still reading something into my posts that I'm not saying.
    previous has no impact on current loss, it impacts the ops understanding of current loss, that's all I'm saying but you keep reading my posts starting from a position of assuming that I don't understand the basic facts. I do.


  • Options
    #89
    Sunrise_Sunset
    Registered Users Posts: 1,211 ✭✭✭Sunrise_Sunset


    I'm 5 ft 2 inches also. I started at 9st 8lbs and lost 15 lbs recently. I still have about 5 lbs more to go to reach my goal.
    Calorie intake of about 1200 per day, 30 mins cardio 4 times per week (spinning, circuits etc), strength training 4-5 times per week.
    For me I have noticed it's the calorie intake that has the biggest impact. You have to be eating in a deficit. Next is strength training, followed by cardio.


  • Options
    #90
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,088 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    GreeBo wrote: »
    You are still reading something into my posts that I'm not saying.
    previous has no impact on current loss,
    I’m aware you’re not saying that. I said as much in a previous post.

    it impacts the ops understanding of current loss,
    This is the part I disagree with. If they are making that mistake, would make more sense to explain how deficits work.

    If they answer that they were eating 1800 or 2400, what changes in the advice.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,084 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Mellor wrote: »
    I’m aware you’re not saying that. I said as much in a previous post.



    This is the part I disagree with. If they are making that mistake, would make more sense to explain how deficits work.

    If they answer that they were eating 1800 or 2400, what changes in the advice.
    A million people have already explained how deficits work.
    Nothing changes in the advice, that's what I keep saying.
    But if the op counts the calories they were previously eating and sees that it wasn't significantly more than 1300 it will help them understand why the weight loss isn't more significant.
    It doesn't impact anything other than helping the op understand.

    If I start getting 10 hours sleep but am still just as tired as I was beforeb getting the 10 hours, it would make more sense to me if it turns out that previously I was getting 9.5 hours and just never tracked it.
    It makes no difference to why I am tired, but I thought I was making a big change so expected a big result.


Advertisement